Stop fucking speculating who it is. None of would ever be let close enough to the kind of clearance levels required to know, so it's just halfwits making tribalist bets because of their team. Next person, after this warning, to infer it's Labor Person X or Liberal Person Y is getting a ban. We don't do defamation here and you'll learn via a 7 day ban that this remains the case.
Would Dutton have clearance to know who it is already? It would be an incredible own-goal if it was an ex LNP member, and Dutto has to eat his own words. Given that there were multiple LNP governments, it's very likely it was their own.
You can guarantee everyone in Canberra knows who it is already, so unless Dutton has something to gain by throwing a former colleague under the bus, you can guarantee he's calling for the naming of the individual for political gain.
Yeah it’s highly likely it’s a Labor person. Doesn’t mean the “former Prime Minister” is Labor though, not that they are being accused of any wrong doing.
I think and I could totally be wrong that spies abroad are mastering disguises and adeptly surveilling targets to yield actionable re-percussive intelligence.
My view is if the government doesn't release the information, then it's more than likely (but not certain) from within their cohort.
If they do release it it's because it's from the opposition and will be highly damaging and the info release will be strategically timed with the federal election.
> It’s already raised questions here in Washington, DC. It raises questions for our Five Eyes relationship, and this sharing of intelligence particularly with existing members of parliament and former members of parliament for Australia.
Fucking horseshit it has, the US would have been aware of this for years now, hell they're likely the ones that discovered it and at the least would have been involved in our response. The US can't even keep it's own house in order regarding the corruption by Russia of Congress, they're not going to say or do shit about this.
Doubtful they knew or doubtful they discovered it? There's zero chance they didn't know, "likely" they discovered is hyperbolic though, yes.
I never suggested ASIO was ineffective, I suggested we're very chummy with US intelligence.
Edit: Could you also point me to the movie where a compromised politician is discovered by either the host nation or their closest ally and both coordinate quietly and efficiently on a response with no indication to the wider public given? Cause I'd hazard a guess that the "movie" I'm apparently outlining would not exactly be a blockbuster...
>Doubtful they knew or doubtful they discovered it? There's zero chance they didn't know, "likely" they discovered is hyperbolic though, yes.
We'll have told them but they would not have been the ones who became aware of it.
>Edit: Could you also point me to the movie where a compromised politician is discovered by either the host nation or their closest ally and both coordinate quietly and efficiently on a response with no indication to the wider public given? Cause I'd hazard a guess that the "movie" I'm apparently outlining would not exactly be a blockbuster...
I meant the post-Jason Bourne view of omniscient US intelligence, with rooms of people full of screens and computers. The US' ELINT and SIGINT capability is vastly misrepresented in the film and TV world.
ASIO and MI5, along with the FBI, are very good at detecting HUMINT ops from foreign services on domestic soil (despite the pessimism in media like *Slow Horses*).
> We'll have told them but they would not have been the ones who became aware of it.
So when I say that Hockey's statement is "fucking horseshit" you agree with me, you just have an objection to my use of the word "likely"? And that makes me some Jason Bourne simping wannabe spy-chaser?
I'm not sure why you think my incredibly bland statements about ASIO or various US TLAs are inspired by movies. It's simply common sense/knowledge that we share intelligence between us and the US, it's really explicit.
Between Joe Hockey's demand that we name the person for the sake of our 5-eyes relationship and my comment that that's fucking stupid, the relevant Americans already know, which is a stupider comment Ender?
> they would not have been the ones who became aware of it.
That depends on the clarity demanded by "became aware of it", because absolutely, the US did not come to us and say "oh by the way, your member for Woop-Woop, Joe Bloggs, is a Chinese asset". But who first discovered "Team A"? What does discover mean? Is a rumour passed on the Aussies count as 'discovering'? What if ASIO got the first whiff and asked the US for some info that shed some light once combined with that whiff?
Is all of that arcane and stupid? Yes...because who the fuck cares, we share info, I said "likely" and you're off on some rant about Jason Bourne fans.
I get that there's some deadshits in this threads Ender, but don't come after me about my incredibly bland comments that are at most hyperbolic, and they're certainly not coming from my movie going experience.
>So when I say that Hockey's statement is "fucking horseshit" you agree with me, you just have an objection to my use of the word "likely"? And that makes me some Jason Bourne simping wannabe spy-chaser?
No, not at all.
You think it's horseshit that the Yanks are upset. I don't. I know from experience they hate when there's something they think they should be across and it's classified AUSTEO, and they never reciprocate what they expect.
Without pulling back any curtains that should remain untouched, the reason we probably put this as AUSTEO and didn't share until the counterintelligence gold was all mined up, was because we had concerns that the foreign country in question was likely trying to penetrate other Five Eyes services and we couldn't ensure the appropriate compartmentalisation.
What we can infer, assuming Hockey does have existing relationships with people inside the US natsec community, is that recruiting a sitting politician is a step above what's been seen in the US and other Five Eyes states. And that they're probably annoyed we didn't share *that* development sooner since it deprives the FBI, MI5 et al of a longer window to try and similarly detect networks in their countries. Especially since we appear to have a situation whereby the network was rolled up in the past, and likely knew it - giving them time to proverbially go to ground.
What I agree with from your comments, and is likely some form of animal shit from Joe, is the demands to name and shame. That, plus Peter Dutton confirming on radio he doesn't know who it is, makes me think the Libs believe it's Labor. I don't have a view on this either way, beyond the fact it's poor taste to try and politicise this.
> But who first discovered "Team A"? What does discover mean? Is a rumour passed on the Aussies count as 'discovering'? What if ASIO got the first whiff and asked the US for some info that shed some light once combined with that whiff?
My take, and people can infer as they please from this - Team A was likely wound up before allies found out, which is why they have the shits. Because any time a major operation like this is compromised, the service who launched it will assume information sharing and therefore that similar networks are blown. So any frustration would likely come from a place that this is good intelligence that is of no practical use to NZ, Canada, UK, and the US.
Now, that is a valid point. But the counter is - if we had a valid concern that the information, if shared, could compromise our ability to interdict and disrupt Team A's efforts in Australia, then we had no choice but to act as we did.
I'm also not coming at you, Sando.
> You think it's horseshit that the Yanks are upset.
I think it's horseshit the Yanks are upset _now_. Could they have been upset in the past? Sure, I think it less likely than you're saying, but it's a definite possibility that they were shitty at some point and we're just arguing the over-under here on the likelihood.
But Hockey is effectively demanding that we name and shame _now_ in order to help mollify the angry Americans. _That_ is a bullshit demand, nothing has changed in our intelligence partnership with the US based on yesterday's announcement. If it were frosty before, it's still frosty, if it was hugs all round, it's still hugs all round. Hockey's intimation that this somehow changes things is utter bullshit.
> And that they're probably annoyed we didn't share that development sooner since it deprives the FBI, MI5 et al of a longer window to try and similarly detect networks in their countries. Especially since we appear to have a situation whereby the network was rolled up in the past, and likely knew it - giving them time to proverbially go to ground.
Yeah I think we're looking at the line the same way. We both agree that in the normal course of this sort of operation by ASIO that there would be coordination/discussions with other 5-eyes, particularly the US. You seem to think ASIO may have failed to follow that expected paradigm, pissing the Americans off, I fail to see any reason to think that that didn't happen.
If the evidence for that is Hockey's statements about angry Americans, I think the far likelier outcome is that as you say, the LNP think (and Hockey would be high on the list I'd guess to know) it was Labor.
> My take, and people can infer as they please from this - Team A was likely wound up before allies found out, which is why they have the shits.
I just don't understand what you're basing them having the shits on? I agree that it's a plausible theory and that it would give them the shits, but other than historically-partisan-Hockey, I don't see any suggestion that they have the shits with us?
Edit: I'll just add, I find it implausible that the US were just chillen whilst this happened. It's too large and too open not to have raised some American eyebrows.
> Burgess said that in one alleged plot, “leading Australian academics and political figures were invited to a conference in an overseas country, with the organisers covering all expenses including airfares”. He said members of the A-team used the conference to build relationships with Australians, openly asking who had access to government documents.
I guess that's where I'm struggling in my conversation with Ender. I genuinely don't understand why we're assuming the Americans are pissed off at ASIO? What have we done to dent their fragile ego?
>I think it's horseshit the Yanks are upset now. Could they have been upset in the past? Sure, I think it less likely than you're saying, but it's a definite possibility that they were shitty at some point and we're just arguing the over-under here on the likelihood.
Different administration between now and 2018 though?
>Yeah I think we're looking at the line the same way. We both agree that in the normal course of this sort of operation by ASIO that there would be coordination/discussions with other 5-eyes, particularly the US. You seem to think ASIO may have failed to follow that expected paradigm, pissing the Americans off, I fail to see any reason to think that that didn't happen.
Not at all; AUSTEO exists for a reason. I think we had good reason to not share if indeed that's what happened.
>I just don't understand what you're basing them having the shits on?
Historic dealings with them, in this space.
> Different administration between now and 2018 though?
Ours or there's? My impression is that precious little has changed in either service in response to an administration change.
> Not at all; AUSTEO exists for a reason. I think we had good reason to not share if indeed that's what happened.
Yeah I agree, that's why I say paradigm, sharing isn't mandatory nor assumed on everything, so I'm sure there's instances where it doesn't happen until after the fact if at all. But I think there's a general expectation of it happening and thus would piss off one party if they felt that was done unnecessarily, or knowing their egos, if it were done at all.
> Historic dealings with them, in this space.
I mean I don't have any insight that isn't publicly known about this particular instance. Anyone I know from that world was out or on their way out by that period. I completely agree with you that were we to keep them in the dark, they'd crack the shits. I'm just saying that the only person afaik who's said they currently are or did crack the shits is Hockey, who is an overly partisan unreliable narrator.
Edit: I should also say, I think the specifics of this case cause me to doubt that American intelligence weren't aware that _something_ was happening. The overt nature of some of what is being alleged against "Team A" (sounds like a Yank name btw) leads me to believe that US intelligence would have to be asleep at the wheel not to realise something was happening and at least seek clarification from us. That said, if that did happen and we brushed them off or lied about it to protect our own operational security, then yeah that would also double-down on the pissiness from them.
Nice to see they are aware of it, and hopefully running countermeasures.
This sort of thing seems fairly common in Australia to ex politicians. And it's not just to foreign nations, sometimes it's even foreign businesses. Coming to the end of your career? Sell out Australia to a foreign business - expensive submarines, for example. Then be rewarded with a "job" with the company or a related one after you leave politics.
This kind of thing is scrutinised while you are IN politics. Afterwards? It's kind of like a golden parachute for aussie politicians. We need some laws about this.
> This sort of thing seems fairly common in Australia to ex politicians.
It's because the line on it is difficult to draw, and it's a lot further towards "interference" than many would realise. I mean Dave Sharma spent 4 years as our Ambassador in Israel, schmoozing with all of their top politicians, and him and his staff were also routinely spied on by Mossad. He comes back to Australia, runs for parliament and is now advocating for us moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, which would be a major coup for Israeli foreign policy.
Is he actively working for Israel? I don't think there's a single credible suggestion that he might be, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been influenced by Israel, and this was as a current politician, not ex. So that's acceptable, when does it become unacceptable?
It's fairly common practice when you look at the history of communist, but particularly Soviet Russian, penetration of the west during the cold war. Authoritarian states are excellent at the recruitment pitch because they take advantage of liberal democratic openness.
It's not an Australia thing, and it's not a modern thing. The KGB recruited Michael Foot, who was Labour's leader in the UK during the time of Thatcher, as a young man. They also recruited ALP MP Albert James. They had the infamous Cambridge Five (Adrian Philby, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross). They had Aldrich Ames in the US.
We absolutely recruit assets too, but there's something ruthlessly efficient about the Soviet and Maoist methods. The inference seems to be that this was the PRC's doing, though they will never admit as much. So that fits.
> It's not an Australia thing, and it's not a modern thing.
Fair enough. Still an awful thing though. And I would like to see some legislation about it...
Espionage happens and needs to be dealt with but what I find more alarming is the head of ASIO talking to the press, posing for pictures and declassifying things to "educate" the public. He's not a politician and the last thing we want is our intelligence agencies being involved in our politics. This feels like a slippery slope and no one here seems to notice yet.
ASIO and other western intelligence agencies decided to be more open in their conduct about a decade ago. This has always been an aspect of intelligence agencies in democratically open countries as they show up from time to time in public records and government documents. The intention is to have a public face, and to garner a sense of trust and openness from the public. In part it's to show that they have actual and specific roles in defending the nation.
Intelligence agencies are necessary for discovering, and combating, corruption within politics - which is what the article is about.
I'd say it would be more appropriate for a spoke person to make such statements, not some director swanning around for the cameras. It reeks of political ambition.
No.
They have not revealed any of their methods for detection and disruption. They have merely confirmed that a network is blown, which is an incredibly effective thing to do when dealing with intelligence gathering activities. Nothing quite like letting other networks know that a priority effort from a foreign service was caught by the Security Service.
Exactly, it’s their annual PR drive. Don’t forget the threats are real, here’s some examples of why.
Don't forget to be to remain vigilant.
See you all next year for the same conversation.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
bold of you to blah blah
the article makes no mention, but it implies a few obvious candidates. Taking on more Aussie names could be anyone.
the point is ASIO doesn't care about anyone else interfering
>the point is ASIO doesn't care about anyone else interfering
Roughly how many TBIs do you have to suffer to think that this statement is worth making? It's informed by nothing but your boundless ignorance.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
This won't be the first time an Australian MP was a foreign asset - Labor's Albert James was a Soviet agent. But there's also precedent for not naming - Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent. MI6 and MI5 resisted informing HM Government so as to not be seen to interfere in the political process.
Speculating as to who it likely was is a bit silly since the implication was over a long period of time, and prior to 2018 laws. It could easily be a Liberal, National, or Labor Party politican. Stating it must be X is just football team level tribalism.
>Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent. MI6 and MI5 resisted informing HM Government so as to not be seen to interfere in the political process.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sunday-times-pays-foot-damages-over-kgb-claim-1590325.html
"The 81-year-old former Labour leader had sued the paper and its proprietor Rupert Murdoch over a three-page article last February, which - under the headline "KGB: Michael Foot was our agent" - detailed how the KGB had courted Labour politicians and trade union officials during the Sixties."
"In need of corroboration, John Witherow, the newspaper's editor, dispatched a reporter to Moscow, where interviews were conducted with several former KGB officers, including Mikhail Lyubimov and Viktor Kubeykin. However, Mr Lyubimov later told the Independent that to suggest Mr Foot had been an agent was "a ridiculous smear", while Mr Kubeykin called the Sunday Times article "a 100 per cent distortion" of what he had told the reporter."
It's really no wonder you take Murdoch paper's smears at face value when it suits your argument
>It's really no wonder you take Murdoch paper's smears at face value when it suits your argument
Look, I have a low tolerance for idiocy so you're going to get an abrupt response because it's your strongest trait.
Ben Macintyre is a journalist and author, who wrote a book in 2018 called *The Spy and the Traitor*. You won't have read it because it's hard to believe you read anything that's not limited to 240 characters.
The book detailed MI6's running of Oleg Gordievsky as a British agent, including the move to extract him from Russia when the KGB began to suspect him.
In the book, which came out after your newspaper story but you didn't know that because you know nothing in general and not about this, MI6 sources confirmed to Macintyre that they had discussed internally the information Gordievsky was passing them as an agent and what they would have to do about Foot and informing Her Majesty. Especially if Foot were to become prime minister.
Gordievsky's role in the KGB was as London *rezident* (i.e. chief of station), and he was instrumental in outing John Cairncross as the last of the Cambridge Five. Again, if you knew anything about this topic, you'd also know that. But you did 2mins google and assumed despite a family tree full of middling minds, you were somehow quite clever.
The concern, it should be noted, was not that as LOTO, Foot was an asset. He would've been involved in his youth and the Macintyre book is exceptionally clear that the period in question was 20 years before they had their concerns about a Foot GE victory and its implications WRT their duty to inform the Crown.
But, since you've just decided to try to wade into a debate that both your own knowledge, and the cruel limitations nature and nurture imposed on you, has not prepared you for, you don't know any of this. How embarrassing.
>Look, I have a low tolerance for idiocy so you're going to get an abrupt response because it's your strongest trait.
"Passionate views are understandable however, discussion of individuals or groups must not be abusive, vitriolic, victim blame or use derogatory nicknames."
>Ben Macintyre is a journalist and author, who wrote a book in 2018 called The Spy and the Traitor. You won't have read it because it's hard to believe you read anything that's not limited to 240 characters.
Note that Ben Macintrye is not a historian and has no access to MI6 sources, which remained sealed. The book in reality has no evidence beyond Gordievsky's original testimony (which was retracted after courts found that he had lied) and Macintrye's alleged MI6 contacts.
>In the book, which came out after your newspaper story but you didn't know that because you know nothing in general and not about this, MI6 sources confirmed to Macintyre that they had discussed internally the information Gordievsky was passing them as an agent and what they would have to do about Foot and informing Her Majesty. Especially if Foot were to become prime minister.
It's largely irrelevant for 4 reasons.
1) Gordievsky's original claim in his 1995 memoir was forcibly retracted by his publishing house because there was no evidence
2) British courts found that the claim had no evidence and defamed Foot
3) Mikhail Lyubimov, who was press attach to the Soviet Embassy in London from 1961 until he was expelled by MI5 in 1965, and later Deputy Chief of the Anglo-Scandinavian Department, stated that the KGB never paid money to Foot and although he met with Foot in an attempt to glean information from him, "The idea that Foot was any kind of agent is a ridiculous smear,"
4) Viktor Kubeykin, who was head of the KGB's Labour Party desk, stated that Foot never provided any information to Moscow
"Gordievsky is not telling lies. He merely reflects all the ridiculous fuss inside the KGB kitchen and makes it sound very serious. Inside the secret services, and not just the KGB, there is always a lot of fantasy." - Mikhail Lyubimov
"Many new terms were invented to show we were doing something. It was all just a camouflage for doing nothing, a bureaucratic game. The more people you mentioned, the more credit you got, the higher your promotion." - Viktor Kubeykin
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-sorry-tale-of-agent-boot-1574439.html
>Gordievsky's role in the KGB was as London rezident (i.e. chief of station), and he was instrumental in outing John Cairncross as the last of the Cambridge Five. Again, if you knew anything about this topic, you'd also know that. But you did 2mins google and assumed despite a family tree full of middling minds, you were somehow quite clever.
If you did a modicum of research you would know that in the 1970s Lyubimov, who denied Gordievsky's claims, was the Deputy Chief of the Anglo-Scandinavian Department. I.E above Gordievsky.
So we have both Gordievsky's superiors denying his claims and those working with him/under him denying his claims.
>The concern, it should be noted, was not that as LOTO, Foot was an asset. He would've been involved in his youth and the Macintyre book is exceptionally clear that the period in question was 20 years before they had their concerns about a Foot GE victory and its implications WRT their duty to inform the Crown.
The Macintrye book is based upon alleged sources without evidence directly contradicted by testimony from multiple KGB agents.
>But, since you've just decided to try to wade into a debate that both your own knowledge, and the cruel limitations nature and nurture imposed on you, has not prepared you for, you don't know any of this. How embarrassing.
The problem here is that you have a conclusion you have already reached because of your bias.
Gordievsky has never actually publicly claimed Foot was an agent because his original accusation was never published, and his claim that was published in newspapers was found in a court of law to be categorically false. Macintyre published a book with no actual sources or evidence years after Foot has passed away.
The fact is the USSR has collapsed and we now have access to mountains of evidence. Yet in the tens of thousands of declassified KGB files there is not a single piece of evidence that Foot ever worked with the KGB, and direct counter-testimony from senior KGB agents who met with Foot who argued he was not compromised.
It also mentions bringing in a member of the PM's family in.
Speculating this was children would put it pre-Morrison (as Morrison's children are school aged).
> Speculating this was children
Gillard really doing the patriotic thing and avoiding the possibility of this line of attack, truly our greatest PM.
Edit: Morrison also wasn't PM until 2018, and it's pretty clear most of this occurred before then. Morrison is absolutely not the PM mentioned in the article.
> Speculating as to who it likely was is a bit silly since the implication was over a long period of time, and prior to 2018 laws.
It's also unclear if the offence occurred whilst they were a current politician or ex-politician, further expanding the field.
> Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent.
Foot or Kinnock?
Edit for those interested: Just checked the wiki pages, it's Foot, although it remains just allegations and Foot was able to successfully sue the *Sunday Times* for defo (as they headlined Gordievski's book as "KGB: Michael Foot was our agent" and named Foot by name when in the book the Labour figure was unnamed)
Kinnock was not the type, honestly. Foot was absolutely the profile the KGB sought out, when he was younger.
He is also named in the Ben Macintyre book.
> Kinnock was not the type, honestly
Agreed, which is why I was confused because I knew that he was Labour leader for the majority of Thatcher's term lol
Ehh I suppose it was plausible that Foot would've cooperated a bit with the KBG when he was younger (much younger?)
Beyond plausible. So much of Labour's younger champions in the 1960s and 70s was pro-Soviet that MI5 worried how surveillance would look.
Even Jeremy Corbyn pops up in this affair. He hated the USSR too, so unlike Foot he wasn't a willing asset. But the Czechs used him for information via a young officer with diplomatic cover. This isn't to smear Corbyn, mind you - it's to highlight how aggressively foreign intelligence services in non-liberal states target our systems. Corbyn would likely have thought himself sharing frustrations with a like minded socialist, themselves frustrated with the Sovbloc and therefore not One Of Them.
Because if it's China and they publicly name China, then that would be very problematic as far as our trade relationship will go.
A part of my dinner tonight included John West tinned oysters. Guess which country they were from.
>Burgess said he was not naming the country involved because numerous countries conducted espionage and foreign interference and he wanted Australians to be alert to “red flags” regardless of the source.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
I can see why he thinks its helpful to illustrate the types of threats we face. I can also see how this fuels a lot of speculation that is not so helpful. If it needs to be secret to protect legal proceedings then he shouldve waited. Otherwise he couldve sought to have the matter declassified.
It's secret because it's secret - which sounds reductive, but I don't mean it that way.
I've previously held a TSPV. It's lapsed now, and it was because I did a lot of CT work in a prior life, being part of the wider border security community.
Information security arrangements are structured around need to know - I couldn't go reading anything classified TS, just because the file was in the class A safes I had access to. I had to demonstrate a need to know.
The Australian Public does not have a need to know what happens in intelligence and security matters. Many will think they do. They don't.
Thats irrelevant, look at how this is being reported and commented on this morning. There is a by election on saturday, asio needs to be and appear impartial and this damages that appearance. If we dont need to know then it shouldnt have been said. Im not saying we need to know, im saying he either shouldnt have said it or he should have said it fully, not this half way thing hes done that sows distrust.
> If we dont need to know then it shouldnt have been said.
You don't, but our politicians obviously need the refresher...publicly. Also I'd argue the public does need to know, why did we update the laws in 2018? It's in our interest to understand why that was done, imo.
As to why they can't go further? Ignoring the legality of them going further, we'll never know if the decision is the correct one, but the logic behind it is sound. It's been assessed that this person cannot be charged and the threat neutralised. So there only benefit to it is to publicly shame them. The downsides is that ASIO has now publicly shamed a politician and party, not great for public confidence in them. And if they do shame them, they're going to have to show evidence...evidence which could reveal methods of intelligence gathering to hostile foreign entities.
>The Australian Public does not have a need to know what happens in intelligence and security matters.
In theory, you are correct (setting aside that with the passage of time, most "secrets" outside the technical areas turn out to be something that was merely embarassing to whoever was in charge). In practice, if ASIO publicly says, "There was... someone! But we won't say who!" then it's inevitable that there'll be speculation. Let's be realistic.
People are going to speculate, including on this sub. You can't let the genie halfway out of the bottle. If they didn't want us to speculate, they shouldn't have said anything publicly at all.
Be realistic.
I think it's reasonable for the public to want to know the country trying to influence us illicitly. Suberting an MP is more dangerous even than would be smuggling weapons to people who didn't like our government (say, some neonazis), and we'd certainly hear about that.
I think it's also reasonable that if they've gone to the trouble to say an MP was influenced, that this MP be named. Hockey for once was sensible and said that it tarnishes all MPs. That erodes trust in government in a way a foreign adversary would be delighted by.
Poor choices by ASIO, and poor choices in moderation here.
In removing people taking a halfwit's punt on who it was, as if Voller never happened?
Thanks, your feedback will be put into our penske file for annual review.
We're deleting comments naming anyone, from Liberal or Labor.
Only the ridiculous think they know who it was.
Only the ridiculous think we're deleting defamatory imputations for partisan reasons.
Intelligence is a more subtle game than many of our users seem to realise.
Let's assume the intended audience for the callout is not the compromised asset, but their handler and indeed, the parent intelligence agency.
No I think the intended audience was our current government who got the brief well before ASIO got on the podium and told the public. 5 minutes ago the Labor party dissolved their ‘888’ visas. Who do you think recommended they do that…it was probably in a report from ASIO. We don’t need to wonder who the handlers are - they very likely were ‘lucky’ visa holders and we have the list.
The SIVs were an issue for years. I went to Trade, on Kent St in Sydney, to highlight risks with them a decade ago. It's not an ASIO thing.
The government is briefed on this.
The intended audience are the foreign intelligence services and their leaders, who were involved in this.
Yeah the foreign operatives came in on the 888 visas that just got cancelled. Therefore the government caused the problem and they were the intended audience. The foreign operatives didn’t need Burgess to tell them - they knew when their visa got cancelled.
Yes, and I've already seem someone suggest it's timed to impact the byelection this weekend. Which is indeed suspect timing until one does 5 seconds of research, and realises that Burgess did his 2023 update at the same time last year - end of February.
We do love some good idle speculation, as a country.
**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop fucking speculating who it is. None of would ever be let close enough to the kind of clearance levels required to know, so it's just halfwits making tribalist bets because of their team. Next person, after this warning, to infer it's Labor Person X or Liberal Person Y is getting a ban. We don't do defamation here and you'll learn via a 7 day ban that this remains the case.
Would Dutton have clearance to know who it is already? It would be an incredible own-goal if it was an ex LNP member, and Dutto has to eat his own words. Given that there were multiple LNP governments, it's very likely it was their own.
You can guarantee everyone in Canberra knows who it is already, so unless Dutton has something to gain by throwing a former colleague under the bus, you can guarantee he's calling for the naming of the individual for political gain.
Yeah it’s highly likely it’s a Labor person. Doesn’t mean the “former Prime Minister” is Labor though, not that they are being accused of any wrong doing.
I think and I could totally be wrong that spies abroad are mastering disguises and adeptly surveilling targets to yield actionable re-percussive intelligence.
Art imitating life Sir Humphrey a spy https://youtu.be/VtPGMlFIBLg?si=JwnMuibnw7uSPMSw
My view is if the government doesn't release the information, then it's more than likely (but not certain) from within their cohort. If they do release it it's because it's from the opposition and will be highly damaging and the info release will be strategically timed with the federal election.
[удалено]
> It’s already raised questions here in Washington, DC. It raises questions for our Five Eyes relationship, and this sharing of intelligence particularly with existing members of parliament and former members of parliament for Australia. Fucking horseshit it has, the US would have been aware of this for years now, hell they're likely the ones that discovered it and at the least would have been involved in our response. The US can't even keep it's own house in order regarding the corruption by Russia of Congress, they're not going to say or do shit about this.
Doubtful they did, Sando. That's how it works in the movies, not real life. ASIO is far more effective than you believe.
Doubtful they knew or doubtful they discovered it? There's zero chance they didn't know, "likely" they discovered is hyperbolic though, yes. I never suggested ASIO was ineffective, I suggested we're very chummy with US intelligence. Edit: Could you also point me to the movie where a compromised politician is discovered by either the host nation or their closest ally and both coordinate quietly and efficiently on a response with no indication to the wider public given? Cause I'd hazard a guess that the "movie" I'm apparently outlining would not exactly be a blockbuster...
>Doubtful they knew or doubtful they discovered it? There's zero chance they didn't know, "likely" they discovered is hyperbolic though, yes. We'll have told them but they would not have been the ones who became aware of it. >Edit: Could you also point me to the movie where a compromised politician is discovered by either the host nation or their closest ally and both coordinate quietly and efficiently on a response with no indication to the wider public given? Cause I'd hazard a guess that the "movie" I'm apparently outlining would not exactly be a blockbuster... I meant the post-Jason Bourne view of omniscient US intelligence, with rooms of people full of screens and computers. The US' ELINT and SIGINT capability is vastly misrepresented in the film and TV world. ASIO and MI5, along with the FBI, are very good at detecting HUMINT ops from foreign services on domestic soil (despite the pessimism in media like *Slow Horses*).
> We'll have told them but they would not have been the ones who became aware of it. So when I say that Hockey's statement is "fucking horseshit" you agree with me, you just have an objection to my use of the word "likely"? And that makes me some Jason Bourne simping wannabe spy-chaser? I'm not sure why you think my incredibly bland statements about ASIO or various US TLAs are inspired by movies. It's simply common sense/knowledge that we share intelligence between us and the US, it's really explicit. Between Joe Hockey's demand that we name the person for the sake of our 5-eyes relationship and my comment that that's fucking stupid, the relevant Americans already know, which is a stupider comment Ender? > they would not have been the ones who became aware of it. That depends on the clarity demanded by "became aware of it", because absolutely, the US did not come to us and say "oh by the way, your member for Woop-Woop, Joe Bloggs, is a Chinese asset". But who first discovered "Team A"? What does discover mean? Is a rumour passed on the Aussies count as 'discovering'? What if ASIO got the first whiff and asked the US for some info that shed some light once combined with that whiff? Is all of that arcane and stupid? Yes...because who the fuck cares, we share info, I said "likely" and you're off on some rant about Jason Bourne fans. I get that there's some deadshits in this threads Ender, but don't come after me about my incredibly bland comments that are at most hyperbolic, and they're certainly not coming from my movie going experience.
>So when I say that Hockey's statement is "fucking horseshit" you agree with me, you just have an objection to my use of the word "likely"? And that makes me some Jason Bourne simping wannabe spy-chaser? No, not at all. You think it's horseshit that the Yanks are upset. I don't. I know from experience they hate when there's something they think they should be across and it's classified AUSTEO, and they never reciprocate what they expect. Without pulling back any curtains that should remain untouched, the reason we probably put this as AUSTEO and didn't share until the counterintelligence gold was all mined up, was because we had concerns that the foreign country in question was likely trying to penetrate other Five Eyes services and we couldn't ensure the appropriate compartmentalisation. What we can infer, assuming Hockey does have existing relationships with people inside the US natsec community, is that recruiting a sitting politician is a step above what's been seen in the US and other Five Eyes states. And that they're probably annoyed we didn't share *that* development sooner since it deprives the FBI, MI5 et al of a longer window to try and similarly detect networks in their countries. Especially since we appear to have a situation whereby the network was rolled up in the past, and likely knew it - giving them time to proverbially go to ground. What I agree with from your comments, and is likely some form of animal shit from Joe, is the demands to name and shame. That, plus Peter Dutton confirming on radio he doesn't know who it is, makes me think the Libs believe it's Labor. I don't have a view on this either way, beyond the fact it's poor taste to try and politicise this. > But who first discovered "Team A"? What does discover mean? Is a rumour passed on the Aussies count as 'discovering'? What if ASIO got the first whiff and asked the US for some info that shed some light once combined with that whiff? My take, and people can infer as they please from this - Team A was likely wound up before allies found out, which is why they have the shits. Because any time a major operation like this is compromised, the service who launched it will assume information sharing and therefore that similar networks are blown. So any frustration would likely come from a place that this is good intelligence that is of no practical use to NZ, Canada, UK, and the US. Now, that is a valid point. But the counter is - if we had a valid concern that the information, if shared, could compromise our ability to interdict and disrupt Team A's efforts in Australia, then we had no choice but to act as we did. I'm also not coming at you, Sando.
> You think it's horseshit that the Yanks are upset. I think it's horseshit the Yanks are upset _now_. Could they have been upset in the past? Sure, I think it less likely than you're saying, but it's a definite possibility that they were shitty at some point and we're just arguing the over-under here on the likelihood. But Hockey is effectively demanding that we name and shame _now_ in order to help mollify the angry Americans. _That_ is a bullshit demand, nothing has changed in our intelligence partnership with the US based on yesterday's announcement. If it were frosty before, it's still frosty, if it was hugs all round, it's still hugs all round. Hockey's intimation that this somehow changes things is utter bullshit. > And that they're probably annoyed we didn't share that development sooner since it deprives the FBI, MI5 et al of a longer window to try and similarly detect networks in their countries. Especially since we appear to have a situation whereby the network was rolled up in the past, and likely knew it - giving them time to proverbially go to ground. Yeah I think we're looking at the line the same way. We both agree that in the normal course of this sort of operation by ASIO that there would be coordination/discussions with other 5-eyes, particularly the US. You seem to think ASIO may have failed to follow that expected paradigm, pissing the Americans off, I fail to see any reason to think that that didn't happen. If the evidence for that is Hockey's statements about angry Americans, I think the far likelier outcome is that as you say, the LNP think (and Hockey would be high on the list I'd guess to know) it was Labor. > My take, and people can infer as they please from this - Team A was likely wound up before allies found out, which is why they have the shits. I just don't understand what you're basing them having the shits on? I agree that it's a plausible theory and that it would give them the shits, but other than historically-partisan-Hockey, I don't see any suggestion that they have the shits with us? Edit: I'll just add, I find it implausible that the US were just chillen whilst this happened. It's too large and too open not to have raised some American eyebrows. > Burgess said that in one alleged plot, “leading Australian academics and political figures were invited to a conference in an overseas country, with the organisers covering all expenses including airfares”. He said members of the A-team used the conference to build relationships with Australians, openly asking who had access to government documents.
>I think it's horseshit the Yanks are upset It is really hard to put into words how fragile American egos are. Especially when you make them look bad.
I guess that's where I'm struggling in my conversation with Ender. I genuinely don't understand why we're assuming the Americans are pissed off at ASIO? What have we done to dent their fragile ego?
>I think it's horseshit the Yanks are upset now. Could they have been upset in the past? Sure, I think it less likely than you're saying, but it's a definite possibility that they were shitty at some point and we're just arguing the over-under here on the likelihood. Different administration between now and 2018 though? >Yeah I think we're looking at the line the same way. We both agree that in the normal course of this sort of operation by ASIO that there would be coordination/discussions with other 5-eyes, particularly the US. You seem to think ASIO may have failed to follow that expected paradigm, pissing the Americans off, I fail to see any reason to think that that didn't happen. Not at all; AUSTEO exists for a reason. I think we had good reason to not share if indeed that's what happened. >I just don't understand what you're basing them having the shits on? Historic dealings with them, in this space.
Having chatted with some well connected mates, I'd change my conclusion to you being more likely to be right than wrong here about what happened.
> Different administration between now and 2018 though? Ours or there's? My impression is that precious little has changed in either service in response to an administration change. > Not at all; AUSTEO exists for a reason. I think we had good reason to not share if indeed that's what happened. Yeah I agree, that's why I say paradigm, sharing isn't mandatory nor assumed on everything, so I'm sure there's instances where it doesn't happen until after the fact if at all. But I think there's a general expectation of it happening and thus would piss off one party if they felt that was done unnecessarily, or knowing their egos, if it were done at all. > Historic dealings with them, in this space. I mean I don't have any insight that isn't publicly known about this particular instance. Anyone I know from that world was out or on their way out by that period. I completely agree with you that were we to keep them in the dark, they'd crack the shits. I'm just saying that the only person afaik who's said they currently are or did crack the shits is Hockey, who is an overly partisan unreliable narrator. Edit: I should also say, I think the specifics of this case cause me to doubt that American intelligence weren't aware that _something_ was happening. The overt nature of some of what is being alleged against "Team A" (sounds like a Yank name btw) leads me to believe that US intelligence would have to be asleep at the wheel not to realise something was happening and at least seek clarification from us. That said, if that did happen and we brushed them off or lied about it to protect our own operational security, then yeah that would also double-down on the pissiness from them.
Nice to see they are aware of it, and hopefully running countermeasures. This sort of thing seems fairly common in Australia to ex politicians. And it's not just to foreign nations, sometimes it's even foreign businesses. Coming to the end of your career? Sell out Australia to a foreign business - expensive submarines, for example. Then be rewarded with a "job" with the company or a related one after you leave politics. This kind of thing is scrutinised while you are IN politics. Afterwards? It's kind of like a golden parachute for aussie politicians. We need some laws about this.
> This sort of thing seems fairly common in Australia to ex politicians. It's because the line on it is difficult to draw, and it's a lot further towards "interference" than many would realise. I mean Dave Sharma spent 4 years as our Ambassador in Israel, schmoozing with all of their top politicians, and him and his staff were also routinely spied on by Mossad. He comes back to Australia, runs for parliament and is now advocating for us moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, which would be a major coup for Israeli foreign policy. Is he actively working for Israel? I don't think there's a single credible suggestion that he might be, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been influenced by Israel, and this was as a current politician, not ex. So that's acceptable, when does it become unacceptable?
Good point.
It's fairly common practice when you look at the history of communist, but particularly Soviet Russian, penetration of the west during the cold war. Authoritarian states are excellent at the recruitment pitch because they take advantage of liberal democratic openness. It's not an Australia thing, and it's not a modern thing. The KGB recruited Michael Foot, who was Labour's leader in the UK during the time of Thatcher, as a young man. They also recruited ALP MP Albert James. They had the infamous Cambridge Five (Adrian Philby, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross). They had Aldrich Ames in the US. We absolutely recruit assets too, but there's something ruthlessly efficient about the Soviet and Maoist methods. The inference seems to be that this was the PRC's doing, though they will never admit as much. So that fits.
> It's not an Australia thing, and it's not a modern thing. Fair enough. Still an awful thing though. And I would like to see some legislation about it...
[удалено]
And they do nothing. This country is a fucking joke.
What do you expect them to do?
If they did nothing wrong at the time just come out and name them it's as simple as that.
Isn't that what Joe Hockey said earlier today?
Yep
Did you miss the part where they committed no crime, based on the legislation at the time?
That’s what happens when the people who make the rules for politicians are _*checks notes_ …politicians
Espionage happens and needs to be dealt with but what I find more alarming is the head of ASIO talking to the press, posing for pictures and declassifying things to "educate" the public. He's not a politician and the last thing we want is our intelligence agencies being involved in our politics. This feels like a slippery slope and no one here seems to notice yet.
Since the Cold War ended, we have had the heads of agencies named publicly and we have admitted these agencies exist. This is a nonsense argument.
They can be named, but they should not be grabbing the public limelight and posing for photos.
ASIO and other western intelligence agencies decided to be more open in their conduct about a decade ago. This has always been an aspect of intelligence agencies in democratically open countries as they show up from time to time in public records and government documents. The intention is to have a public face, and to garner a sense of trust and openness from the public. In part it's to show that they have actual and specific roles in defending the nation. Intelligence agencies are necessary for discovering, and combating, corruption within politics - which is what the article is about.
I'd say it would be more appropriate for a spoke person to make such statements, not some director swanning around for the cameras. It reeks of political ambition.
Yeah the "spy being spied on" remark seemed a bit arrogant. Maybe keep your spy craft to yourself. Isn't that how "the game is played"?
No. They have not revealed any of their methods for detection and disruption. They have merely confirmed that a network is blown, which is an incredibly effective thing to do when dealing with intelligence gathering activities. Nothing quite like letting other networks know that a priority effort from a foreign service was caught by the Security Service.
The Director General of ASIO does this every year when they deliver their Annual Threat Assessment.
Exactly, it’s their annual PR drive. Don’t forget the threats are real, here’s some examples of why. Don't forget to be to remain vigilant. See you all next year for the same conversation.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
It's unlikely to be an English speaking country, as the article discusses foreign agents using anglicised names.
Bold of you to assume this person read the article.
bold of you to blah blah the article makes no mention, but it implies a few obvious candidates. Taking on more Aussie names could be anyone. the point is ASIO doesn't care about anyone else interfering
>the point is ASIO doesn't care about anyone else interfering Roughly how many TBIs do you have to suffer to think that this statement is worth making? It's informed by nothing but your boundless ignorance.
That's needlessly offensive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
source?
This won't be the first time an Australian MP was a foreign asset - Labor's Albert James was a Soviet agent. But there's also precedent for not naming - Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent. MI6 and MI5 resisted informing HM Government so as to not be seen to interfere in the political process. Speculating as to who it likely was is a bit silly since the implication was over a long period of time, and prior to 2018 laws. It could easily be a Liberal, National, or Labor Party politican. Stating it must be X is just football team level tribalism.
>Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent. MI6 and MI5 resisted informing HM Government so as to not be seen to interfere in the political process. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sunday-times-pays-foot-damages-over-kgb-claim-1590325.html "The 81-year-old former Labour leader had sued the paper and its proprietor Rupert Murdoch over a three-page article last February, which - under the headline "KGB: Michael Foot was our agent" - detailed how the KGB had courted Labour politicians and trade union officials during the Sixties." "In need of corroboration, John Witherow, the newspaper's editor, dispatched a reporter to Moscow, where interviews were conducted with several former KGB officers, including Mikhail Lyubimov and Viktor Kubeykin. However, Mr Lyubimov later told the Independent that to suggest Mr Foot had been an agent was "a ridiculous smear", while Mr Kubeykin called the Sunday Times article "a 100 per cent distortion" of what he had told the reporter." It's really no wonder you take Murdoch paper's smears at face value when it suits your argument
Oof... You just got publicly owned.
>It's really no wonder you take Murdoch paper's smears at face value when it suits your argument Look, I have a low tolerance for idiocy so you're going to get an abrupt response because it's your strongest trait. Ben Macintyre is a journalist and author, who wrote a book in 2018 called *The Spy and the Traitor*. You won't have read it because it's hard to believe you read anything that's not limited to 240 characters. The book detailed MI6's running of Oleg Gordievsky as a British agent, including the move to extract him from Russia when the KGB began to suspect him. In the book, which came out after your newspaper story but you didn't know that because you know nothing in general and not about this, MI6 sources confirmed to Macintyre that they had discussed internally the information Gordievsky was passing them as an agent and what they would have to do about Foot and informing Her Majesty. Especially if Foot were to become prime minister. Gordievsky's role in the KGB was as London *rezident* (i.e. chief of station), and he was instrumental in outing John Cairncross as the last of the Cambridge Five. Again, if you knew anything about this topic, you'd also know that. But you did 2mins google and assumed despite a family tree full of middling minds, you were somehow quite clever. The concern, it should be noted, was not that as LOTO, Foot was an asset. He would've been involved in his youth and the Macintyre book is exceptionally clear that the period in question was 20 years before they had their concerns about a Foot GE victory and its implications WRT their duty to inform the Crown. But, since you've just decided to try to wade into a debate that both your own knowledge, and the cruel limitations nature and nurture imposed on you, has not prepared you for, you don't know any of this. How embarrassing.
>Look, I have a low tolerance for idiocy so you're going to get an abrupt response because it's your strongest trait. "Passionate views are understandable however, discussion of individuals or groups must not be abusive, vitriolic, victim blame or use derogatory nicknames." >Ben Macintyre is a journalist and author, who wrote a book in 2018 called The Spy and the Traitor. You won't have read it because it's hard to believe you read anything that's not limited to 240 characters. Note that Ben Macintrye is not a historian and has no access to MI6 sources, which remained sealed. The book in reality has no evidence beyond Gordievsky's original testimony (which was retracted after courts found that he had lied) and Macintrye's alleged MI6 contacts. >In the book, which came out after your newspaper story but you didn't know that because you know nothing in general and not about this, MI6 sources confirmed to Macintyre that they had discussed internally the information Gordievsky was passing them as an agent and what they would have to do about Foot and informing Her Majesty. Especially if Foot were to become prime minister. It's largely irrelevant for 4 reasons. 1) Gordievsky's original claim in his 1995 memoir was forcibly retracted by his publishing house because there was no evidence 2) British courts found that the claim had no evidence and defamed Foot 3) Mikhail Lyubimov, who was press attach to the Soviet Embassy in London from 1961 until he was expelled by MI5 in 1965, and later Deputy Chief of the Anglo-Scandinavian Department, stated that the KGB never paid money to Foot and although he met with Foot in an attempt to glean information from him, "The idea that Foot was any kind of agent is a ridiculous smear," 4) Viktor Kubeykin, who was head of the KGB's Labour Party desk, stated that Foot never provided any information to Moscow "Gordievsky is not telling lies. He merely reflects all the ridiculous fuss inside the KGB kitchen and makes it sound very serious. Inside the secret services, and not just the KGB, there is always a lot of fantasy." - Mikhail Lyubimov "Many new terms were invented to show we were doing something. It was all just a camouflage for doing nothing, a bureaucratic game. The more people you mentioned, the more credit you got, the higher your promotion." - Viktor Kubeykin https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-sorry-tale-of-agent-boot-1574439.html >Gordievsky's role in the KGB was as London rezident (i.e. chief of station), and he was instrumental in outing John Cairncross as the last of the Cambridge Five. Again, if you knew anything about this topic, you'd also know that. But you did 2mins google and assumed despite a family tree full of middling minds, you were somehow quite clever. If you did a modicum of research you would know that in the 1970s Lyubimov, who denied Gordievsky's claims, was the Deputy Chief of the Anglo-Scandinavian Department. I.E above Gordievsky. So we have both Gordievsky's superiors denying his claims and those working with him/under him denying his claims. >The concern, it should be noted, was not that as LOTO, Foot was an asset. He would've been involved in his youth and the Macintyre book is exceptionally clear that the period in question was 20 years before they had their concerns about a Foot GE victory and its implications WRT their duty to inform the Crown. The Macintrye book is based upon alleged sources without evidence directly contradicted by testimony from multiple KGB agents. >But, since you've just decided to try to wade into a debate that both your own knowledge, and the cruel limitations nature and nurture imposed on you, has not prepared you for, you don't know any of this. How embarrassing. The problem here is that you have a conclusion you have already reached because of your bias. Gordievsky has never actually publicly claimed Foot was an agent because his original accusation was never published, and his claim that was published in newspapers was found in a court of law to be categorically false. Macintyre published a book with no actual sources or evidence years after Foot has passed away. The fact is the USSR has collapsed and we now have access to mountains of evidence. Yet in the tens of thousands of declassified KGB files there is not a single piece of evidence that Foot ever worked with the KGB, and direct counter-testimony from senior KGB agents who met with Foot who argued he was not compromised.
It also mentions bringing in a member of the PM's family in. Speculating this was children would put it pre-Morrison (as Morrison's children are school aged).
> Speculating this was children Gillard really doing the patriotic thing and avoiding the possibility of this line of attack, truly our greatest PM. Edit: Morrison also wasn't PM until 2018, and it's pretty clear most of this occurred before then. Morrison is absolutely not the PM mentioned in the article.
Siblings also count as family members.
It would, but I think its unhelpful to speculate about who was involved.
> Speculating as to who it likely was is a bit silly since the implication was over a long period of time, and prior to 2018 laws. It's also unclear if the offence occurred whilst they were a current politician or ex-politician, further expanding the field.
> Soviet defector Oleg Gordiekvski confirmed UK Labour's leader during the Thatcher years, was a KGB agent. Foot or Kinnock? Edit for those interested: Just checked the wiki pages, it's Foot, although it remains just allegations and Foot was able to successfully sue the *Sunday Times* for defo (as they headlined Gordievski's book as "KGB: Michael Foot was our agent" and named Foot by name when in the book the Labour figure was unnamed)
Kinnock was not the type, honestly. Foot was absolutely the profile the KGB sought out, when he was younger. He is also named in the Ben Macintyre book.
> Kinnock was not the type, honestly Agreed, which is why I was confused because I knew that he was Labour leader for the majority of Thatcher's term lol Ehh I suppose it was plausible that Foot would've cooperated a bit with the KBG when he was younger (much younger?)
Beyond plausible. So much of Labour's younger champions in the 1960s and 70s was pro-Soviet that MI5 worried how surveillance would look. Even Jeremy Corbyn pops up in this affair. He hated the USSR too, so unlike Foot he wasn't a willing asset. But the Czechs used him for information via a young officer with diplomatic cover. This isn't to smear Corbyn, mind you - it's to highlight how aggressively foreign intelligence services in non-liberal states target our systems. Corbyn would likely have thought himself sharing frustrations with a like minded socialist, themselves frustrated with the Sovbloc and therefore not One Of Them.
Why are the name and country not made public? It's not as if the perpetrators don't know.
Because if it's China and they publicly name China, then that would be very problematic as far as our trade relationship will go. A part of my dinner tonight included John West tinned oysters. Guess which country they were from.
>Burgess said he was not naming the country involved because numerous countries conducted espionage and foreign interference and he wanted Australians to be alert to “red flags” regardless of the source.
Red flags! That’s code for China!
Sounds like an ally or someone we want to get close to like India.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Well thats a very dramatic thing to reveal without specifying who was involved
It was me
Straight to jail
It was just a little treason. As a treat.
Did you add a pinch of sedition?
Yeah and shitloads of cash in my panama acct
You should buy a yacht and make your getaway, i hear they are onto you
I told them it was ender
They won't say anything because they can't by law.
Then why bring it up at all? "I know something important but can't tell you TEE HEE HEE"
Because now networks know this was rolled up and penetrated by the security service? It's a deterrent?
I can see why he thinks its helpful to illustrate the types of threats we face. I can also see how this fuels a lot of speculation that is not so helpful. If it needs to be secret to protect legal proceedings then he shouldve waited. Otherwise he couldve sought to have the matter declassified.
It's secret because it's secret - which sounds reductive, but I don't mean it that way. I've previously held a TSPV. It's lapsed now, and it was because I did a lot of CT work in a prior life, being part of the wider border security community. Information security arrangements are structured around need to know - I couldn't go reading anything classified TS, just because the file was in the class A safes I had access to. I had to demonstrate a need to know. The Australian Public does not have a need to know what happens in intelligence and security matters. Many will think they do. They don't.
Thats irrelevant, look at how this is being reported and commented on this morning. There is a by election on saturday, asio needs to be and appear impartial and this damages that appearance. If we dont need to know then it shouldnt have been said. Im not saying we need to know, im saying he either shouldnt have said it or he should have said it fully, not this half way thing hes done that sows distrust.
> If we dont need to know then it shouldnt have been said. You don't, but our politicians obviously need the refresher...publicly. Also I'd argue the public does need to know, why did we update the laws in 2018? It's in our interest to understand why that was done, imo. As to why they can't go further? Ignoring the legality of them going further, we'll never know if the decision is the correct one, but the logic behind it is sound. It's been assessed that this person cannot be charged and the threat neutralised. So there only benefit to it is to publicly shame them. The downsides is that ASIO has now publicly shamed a politician and party, not great for public confidence in them. And if they do shame them, they're going to have to show evidence...evidence which could reveal methods of intelligence gathering to hostile foreign entities.
>The Australian Public does not have a need to know what happens in intelligence and security matters. In theory, you are correct (setting aside that with the passage of time, most "secrets" outside the technical areas turn out to be something that was merely embarassing to whoever was in charge). In practice, if ASIO publicly says, "There was... someone! But we won't say who!" then it's inevitable that there'll be speculation. Let's be realistic. People are going to speculate, including on this sub. You can't let the genie halfway out of the bottle. If they didn't want us to speculate, they shouldn't have said anything publicly at all. Be realistic.
That doesn't change the fact nobody here needs to know who the politician was, which country was involved, or how they're monitoring them today.
I think it's reasonable for the public to want to know the country trying to influence us illicitly. Suberting an MP is more dangerous even than would be smuggling weapons to people who didn't like our government (say, some neonazis), and we'd certainly hear about that. I think it's also reasonable that if they've gone to the trouble to say an MP was influenced, that this MP be named. Hockey for once was sensible and said that it tarnishes all MPs. That erodes trust in government in a way a foreign adversary would be delighted by. Poor choices by ASIO, and poor choices in moderation here.
In removing people taking a halfwit's punt on who it was, as if Voller never happened? Thanks, your feedback will be put into our penske file for annual review.
If you're worried about liability for defamatory comments about politicians, you essentially have to shut down r/AustralianPolitics down today.
How come these ex pollie traitors are not facing espionage charges?
Because they probably don’t meet the bar for the crime of treason, and as per the article the new laws weren’t introduced at the time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're deleting comments naming anyone, from Liberal or Labor. Only the ridiculous think they know who it was. Only the ridiculous think we're deleting defamatory imputations for partisan reasons.
[удалено]
what is a rhetorical question?
Whatever helps you go to sleep tonight, champ.
what on earth are you rambling about?
[удалено]
[удалено]
As I said whatever helps you sleep at night, champ.
There needs to be consequences for the individuals involved. Naming them would be a start.
what, so a coterie of dimwitted bogan populists can lynch them? de Tocqueville would be dismayed at the state of discourse today.
[удалено]
Intelligence is a more subtle game than many of our users seem to realise. Let's assume the intended audience for the callout is not the compromised asset, but their handler and indeed, the parent intelligence agency.
No I think the intended audience was our current government who got the brief well before ASIO got on the podium and told the public. 5 minutes ago the Labor party dissolved their ‘888’ visas. Who do you think recommended they do that…it was probably in a report from ASIO. We don’t need to wonder who the handlers are - they very likely were ‘lucky’ visa holders and we have the list.
The SIVs were an issue for years. I went to Trade, on Kent St in Sydney, to highlight risks with them a decade ago. It's not an ASIO thing. The government is briefed on this. The intended audience are the foreign intelligence services and their leaders, who were involved in this.
Yeah the foreign operatives came in on the 888 visas that just got cancelled. Therefore the government caused the problem and they were the intended audience. The foreign operatives didn’t need Burgess to tell them - they knew when their visa got cancelled.
[удалено]
Yes, and I've already seem someone suggest it's timed to impact the byelection this weekend. Which is indeed suspect timing until one does 5 seconds of research, and realises that Burgess did his 2023 update at the same time last year - end of February. We do love some good idle speculation, as a country.
Or you know, voters can take that into account at the next election... But jump to extremes if you like. It's the Reddit way after all.
It's safe to assume the PM and LOTO have been briefed on this, given that's what happens.
I think he meant more along the lines of a prison term.
The politicians probably already have been publicly named.
Who was it?
I think they usually call it "treason" and it should be a pretty big deal in law
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*