War On Journalism: London Edition

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was on a flight to Brazil that unfortunately happened to travel through London. There, citing one of those post-911 batshit crazy terrorism laws, UK authorities detained him, barred access to counsel, and questioned him about his journalistic activities for 9 hours.
GG wrote:The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.
The UK agents seized his laptop, phone, and all electronic devices and media. Because terrorism.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5927
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Angua » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

Brazil is not happy about it either. Sadly I can't find the article that was focussed on them that I read earlier when the story was fresher, but main story now is that the UK told the US that they were doing it, but the US is denying asking them to do it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23761918
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Derek » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:55 pm UTC

Some context would help. Who is David Miranda? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on him.
Last edited by Derek on Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Роберт » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

Derek wrote:Some context would help. Who the is David Miranda? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on him.

Did the news links not work for you?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:07 pm UTC

Derek wrote:Some context would help. Who the is David Miranda? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on him.


He is Glenn Greenwald's boyfriend, though the use of "partner" throughout the media confuses this somewhat. He was traveling between Germany, where he was staying with somebody who is at the moment working on a Snowden documentary, and Brazil where he and Greenwald live together.

I can't believe that this isn't a top news story today, except I guess it has so many elements that make media squirm (gay people, abuse of government powers); I would think that the suppression of other media folk would bother them enough to get it serious coverage but I guess not.

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Derek » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:17 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
Derek wrote:Some context would help. Who the is David Miranda? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on him.


He is Glenn Greenwald's boyfriend, though the use of "partner" throughout the media confuses this somewhat. He was traveling between Germany, where he was staying with somebody who is at the moment working on a Snowden documentary, and Brazil where he and Greenwald live together.

I can't believe that this isn't a top news story today, except I guess it has so many elements that make media squirm (gay people, abuse of government powers); I would think that the suppression of other media folk would bother them enough to get it serious coverage but I guess not.

Well I didn't know who Glenn Greenwald was either, but he's got a Wikipedia article so that works. I understand the connection with the NSA scandal now.

Роберт wrote:
Derek wrote:Some context would help. Who the is David Miranda? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on him.

Did the news links not work for you?

In truth I only read the blurb, but the full article isn't very helpful either. I interpreted "partner" as "reporting partner". Knowing that he means boyfriend/husband, and knowing who Glenn Greenwald is, makes a big difference.

Though I can understand how starting an article with "David Miranda, my boyfriend, and oh btw I'm the guy who broke the NSA story, ..." could be a bit awkward, it would have at least helped me in the re-post.
Last edited by Derek on Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:19 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Роберт » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:17 pm UTC

Derek wrote:In truth I only read the blurb, but the full article isn't very helpful either. I interpreted "partner" as "reporting partner". Knowing that he means boyfriend/husband, and knowing who Glenn Greenwald is, makes a big difference.

Gotcha.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:42 am UTC

It gets worse.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced ... 33670.html

Britain forced Guardian to destroy copy of Snowden material

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The editor of the Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.

In an article posted on the British newspaper's website on Monday, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."

Spoiler:
After further talks with the government, Rusbridger said, two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the ultra-secretive U.S. National Security Agency, visited the Guardian's London offices.

In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. "We can call off the black helicopters," Rusbridger says one of the officials joked.

The Guardian's decision to publicize the government threat - and the newspaper's assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain - appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret surveillance programs.

On Sunday, British authorities detained for nine hours the domestic partner of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian writer who met face to face in Hong Kong with Snowden and has written or co-authored many of the newspaper's stories based on his material.

The Guardian reported, and UK authorities subsequently confirmed, that David Miranda, Greenwald's Brazilian partner, was detained by British authorities under an anti-terrorism law as he was in transit from Berlin to Brazil and was changing planes at London's Heathrow Airport.

One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that while the United States did not ask British authorities to detain Miranda, British officials had given the United States a "heads up" about the British government's plan to question him.

Rusbridger, in his article on the Guardian's website, said that despite the destruction of the computers in London, he told British officials that due to the nature of "international collaborations" among journalists, it would remain possible for media organizations to "take advantage of the most permissive legal environments." Henceforth, he said, the Guardian "did not have to do our reporting from London."

A source familiar with the matter said that this meant British authorities were on notice that the Guardian was likely to continue to report on the Snowden revelations from outside British government jurisdiction.

Rusbridger said that in meetings with British officials before the computers were destroyed, he told them the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.

In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying.

During Miranda's trip to Berlin, which the Guardian said it had paid for, he visited with Laura Poitras, an independent film-maker who was the first journalist to interact with Snowden. Poitras co-authored stories based on Snowden's material for the Washington Post and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

Greenwald told the New York Times that Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda near Rio de Janeiro.

Greenwald said British authorities seized all electronic media, including data memory sticks, which Miranda was carrying. But Greenwald told the Forbes website that "everything" Miranda had "was heavily encrypted."

Greenwald did not immediately respond to an email from Reuters requesting comment.

While British authorities confirmed that Miranda had been detained under an anti-terrorism law, they did not further explain their actions. Brazil's government complained about Miranda's detention in a statement on Sunday that said the use of the British anti-terrorism law was unjustified.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Tim Dobbyn)


I assume [hope] that Glen Greenwald is holding the classified documents in multiple encrypted places, and if this is true, it isn't quite the loss it could be.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5927
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Angua » Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:44 am UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Red Hal » Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:17 am UTC

Just as when the NSA story broke, expect a slew of stories to crop up over the next few days about how NSA or GCHQ stopped this or that terrorist attack, or broke a paedophile ring, or helped find a lost kitten. The police were within their rights to detain Miranda, but that does not make what they did right. Hey, if they aren't doing anything wrong then they've got nothing to hide, yes?
Last edited by Red Hal on Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
D.B.
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby D.B. » Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:38 am UTC

On a related note, in a textbook example of the chilling effect mass government surveillance can have, groklaw has today announced it's closing.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5927
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Angua » Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:20 pm UTC

I'm a bit confused over what groklaw does - if it's just a blog then how is this affecting them?

Also, Miranda is fighting back, so this is likely to go on for quite a while. It will definitely be interesting to see how things evolve from here. The home office is defending the decision, as there was reason to think he had 'stolen information which could help terrorism'.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:32 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized.

It really shows you how tech-savvy someone is when they take a bat to a laptop.
Spoiler:
Image

Angua wrote:The home office is defending the decision, as there was reason to think he had 'stolen information which could help terrorism'.
Yeah, and I saw a guy with a 'gun which could help terrorism' get out of a 'car which could help terrorism' and go into a 'store which could help terrorism.' Call Scotland Yard!

Seriously, carrying a laptop through an airport is not terrorism.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby leady » Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:35 pm UTC

This such a violation of miranda rights..... (sorry someone needed to make the pun)

I love the way incidents like these highlight that the UK is quite distant from a real free country. I can well imagine in the eyes of the police grabbing him and all his copies of data is legally valid and sensible - just not sure it holds up well in public opinion.

User avatar
D.B.
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby D.B. » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:06 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I'm a bit confused over what groklaw does - if it's just a blog then how is this affecting them?


The specific arrest of this one individual at an airport - I suppose not too much.

As part of the general narrative where people connected with journalists are targeted for interrogation and newspapers are forced to destroy laptops at the behest of Whitehall, having a very well known (in some circles) legal news website close down specifically because they fear they can't prevent "forced exposure" due to government monitoring seemed at least tangentally related to me.

With hindsight, maybe my post would have been better in the general PRISM thread. It happening so soon after the guardian fiasco just felt timely.
Last edited by D.B. on Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Zamfir » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:12 pm UTC


It really shows you how tech-savvy someone is when they take a bat to a laptop.

I presume the main point is intimidation, not actually destroying information. Same for the airport searches, or redirecting the Bolivian president, etc. The message is that if you want to get involved in such affairs, expect that your life becomes difficult. A smaller news organization might be daunted just by the cost of the computers they might lose.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

You're right, intimidation is likely the motivation. The Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger has written a piece about the detention and the computer smashing and it sounds like the UK is trying to intimidate him and dictate what he publishes.
You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more.

Thankfully, it seems that this sort of intimidation is doomed to fail, as Rusbridger makes it clear that this act will not hinder the Guardian's reporting in any way and if need be, they will publish news from countries which are less hostile to journalists.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

Suppression of information in a British airport and no one mentions 'Airstrip 1'?

For shame.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Zamfir » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:07 pm UTC

At a guess, it's still effective. In the future, news orgs will look extra careful at such opportunities, wondering whether it's worth the effort and hassle. And even within the current Guardian, it strains the project. The guardian is not an infinite well of money and personnel, at some point other news will claim those. The harder this project becomes to run, the more tempting to wind it down. Reporting from abroad would be particularly expensive. For now, it runs on prestige and this could go on for a while. But still.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Роберт » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:At a guess, it's still effective. In the future, news orgs will look extra careful at such opportunities, wondering whether it's worth the effort and hassle. And even within the current Guardian, it strains the project. The guardian is not an infinite well of money and personnel, at some point other news will claim those. The harder this project becomes to run, the more tempting to wind it down. Reporting from abroad would be particularly expensive. For now, it runs on prestige and this could go on for a while. But still.

I found this quote interesting:
America, for all its own problems with media laws and whistleblowers, at least has press freedom enshrined in a written constitution.

It sounds like the UK can go full-blown censorship without stepping on too many legal toes, whereas the U.S. treatment of Snowden is more obviously legally questionable?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:It sounds like the UK can go full-blown censorship without stepping on too many legal toes, whereas the U.S. treatment of Snowden is more obviously legally questionable?


I think the US can go after Snowden as much as they want. If Snowden had given the story to the New York Times instead of the Guardian, the Times would be better protected in the US than the Guardian is in the UK. That's the theory at least.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby leady » Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:You're right, intimidation is likely the motivation. The Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger has written a piece about the detention and the computer smashing and it sounds like the UK is trying to intimidate him and dictate what he publishes.
You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more.

Thankfully, it seems that this sort of intimidation is doomed to fail, as Rusbridger makes it clear that this act will not hinder the Guardian's reporting in any way and if need be, they will publish news from countries which are less hostile to journalists.


Other folks from the UK can support / deny - but I think thats "britishness" rather than the threat it would be in say the US. Our spooks don't need to intimidate, they have the powers to do things the NSA would only dream of (for example if they cared they would have just D noticed the guardian).

The UK house of commons has effectively unlimited authority to generate new laws and to eliminate existing clauses. The UK is governed on the honour system and has been for decades :) In some ways thats more honest than having a written constitution that twisted out of all recognition when its not liked :)

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Mambrino » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:34 pm UTC

Home Secretary Theresa May comments:

"I think one of the prime duties of government is actually to protect the public, and I think it is absolutely right that if the police believe somebody is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that could help terrorists, that could risk lives, lead to a potential loss of life, that the police are able to act. And that's what the law enables them to do."


Breaking news: Engaging in journalism in a way the UK government finds embarrassing is now 'helping terrorists'.

Also, I wonder if possessing any information that theoretically could help 'terrorists' is enough get 9 hour interrogation without interpreter at Heathrow airport. There is a possibility that if my credit card is stolen (and the criminals manage to get some money) the criminals may be affiliated with some terrorist organisation.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Steax » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:26 am UTC

I see the (terrifying) brilliance in the "terrorist" excuse now. The government is the "anti-terrorist" group, intending to maintain peace amongst its people, while the terrorists are hell-bent on destroying the people and government. Past terrorist groups didn't always make it out this way, but the recent "war on terror" and "they're coming to get you on every plane" scares did exactly that.

So now, by near-definition, any information that is secret to the government is automatically "helpful" for terrorists (since their intentions directly oppose one another).

Literally any sort of secret information can somehow be defined as 'helpful' for terrorists, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Have the home address of a person some politician is having an affair with? It'll help terrorists locate them and terrorize the politician to bend to their will!
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Vahir » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:32 am UTC

It makes things very black and white. Anyone opposing the government is on the side of terrorism. If you're not with us, you're against us.

elasto
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby elasto » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:28 am UTC

The authorities have probably bitten off more than they can chew here though. Up until now there have been plenty of abuses of anti-terrorist legislation but there are lots of politicians and judges on the 'liberty' side of the 'liberty vs security' seesaw and this case will likely be a rallying point - not least in the courts; This could go all the way to the European Courts - and they are not going to look upon this behavior kindly.

Plus the media will circle the wagons to defend one of their own:

BBC analysis wrote:This case is about far more than whether police misused their powers by detaining David Miranda.

It's shone a light on the little-known Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, brought in before 9/11 to deal principally with Northern Ireland-based terror groups - and used 61,145 times last year against a range of passengers, the vast majority of whom have no connection with terrorism whatsoever.

It's demonstrated the difficulties of striking the right balance between freedom of expression and national security - and the lengths to which the state will go to safeguard it.

And it's highlighted the way investigative journalists are now forced to operate - criss-crossing the globe holding face-to-face meetings rather than sending emails with sensitive material in case they're intercepted.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10192
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby addams » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:45 am UTC

Vahir wrote:It makes things very black and white. Anyone opposing the government is on the side of terrorism. If you're not with us, you're against us.

I have no idea what is really going on and neither do you.
That I an sure of.
Enemies? Terrorists? Good Grief!

I do know there are some Ugly Secrets.
Who has these Ugly Secrets?

Who would undermine our single minded determination to justify poor behavior?

It seems I would. I am not a terrorist. I am not scary. I may not be the only one.
I know for a Fact the US has spent more money and manpower to hurt me than you are allowed to know.
Who am I? No one, really. A simple person.

I was educated by my Government. I had a responsibility to read and to write and to speak.
I thought I had a right to live my life and run my business as I saw fit. I was wrong.

Would I do it, again? Maybe.
What did I do?

One more time;
1. I read the Patriot Act and wrote a statement and read that statement inside a public building into a microphone.
2. I attended post-grad classes at the U of O. I read US policy papers there and questioned the policies.
The Policy papers from the U of O were written by some Big Shots. Those men were flying in and out of Washington DC and having a wonderful time on your dime. Those policy papers became policy. I still think some of those policies were and are a Bad Idea!
3. I not only questioned the behavior of the Far Right Thinkers, I also questioned the behavior of other rich and powerful people.

List? Barney Frank hates me and I don't like him, either.
He still has his beautiful homes and pretty boy toy.
No one dare question that man. He is Mean!

Charles Dages and the Important People.
That man got a two million dollar a year raise from the US government for making
Video games to teach Safe Sex to people that do not have electricity.
Don't worry. Those cd's never left the east coast of the US.

The AIDS relief money George W. promised to Africa?
That is what they and we got for the 16 million.
A climate controlled storage shed with cd's worth 16 million dollars.

Those cd's are Not worth 2 million times 8.
Don't worry. It is, just, money.

Sid Liken got a promotion. It was called an election.
That may have been the moment I gave up on elections.

Richard Cheney, too. How lucky am I?
I got to meet the man. I did not know who he was.

People don't always look the same when they are not on TV.
I had no clue who he was. He was snotty and arrogant.
He also had the Softest Hands I had ever encountered.

Why did he dislike me? The Patriot Act.
Why he gives such a shit about that fucked up document is beyond me.
I know for a fact that what he thought of The People and what I thought of The People were at odds.

(shrug) He may be right. The People may be willfully ignorant and as mean spirited as he is.

I think that guy in London got off easy. Is it because he is a gay man? Might be.

Who Runs The World?
Some gay guys, some in the closet, some out of the closet.
Some rigid thinking, mean spirited, rich and powerful old men.
Some media executives.

Who else? The man that lives in The White House? nah.
He is the Prisoner in Chief.
I am willing to bet he and I both pray he simply lives through the experience.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5927
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Angua » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:48 am UTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243The files had already been copied, but they had to destroy the hard drives anyway, for what, symbolism???

The Guardian is moving all stuff about this story to the US.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Zamfir » Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:32 am UTC

As far as I can see, the process was this:

- government agents wanted to have the disks
- Guardian said no, then you could see how much as-yet unpublished stuff is still there.
- But you are not allowed to have the disks with this info on it
- then we prefer to destroy the disks
- OK, here's an angle grinder

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Steax » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:43 am UTC



Good ol' fashioned interrogation-for-passwords is back, I see.

Image
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Ptolom
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:55 pm UTC
Location: The entropy pool
Contact:

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Ptolom » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:41 pm UTC

Though in this case it's more lock him up without a lawyer and threaten him with a £100,000 spell in prison (it's not cheap to lock people up).

elasto
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby elasto » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:50 pm UTC

Hopefully he had good advice and used something like TrueCrypt with hidden volumes: You can reveal the password and retain plausible deniability that that the free space doesn't itself contain further encrypted files:

Hidden Volume

It may happen that you are forced by somebody to reveal the password to an encrypted volume. There are many situations where you cannot refuse to reveal the password (for example, due to extortion). Using a so-called hidden volume allows you to solve such situations without revealing the password to your volume.

The principle is that a TrueCrypt volume is created within another TrueCrypt volume (within the free space on the volume). Even when the outer volume is mounted, it should be impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not*, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created** and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data. Note that TrueCrypt does not modify the file system (information about free space, etc.) within the outer volume in any way.

The password for the hidden volume must be substantially different from the password for the outer volume. To the outer volume, (before creating the hidden volume within it) you should copy some sensitive-looking files that you actually do NOT want to hide. These files will be there for anyone who would force you to hand over the password. You will reveal only the password for the outer volume, not for the hidden one. Files that really are sensitive will be stored on the hidden volume.


http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:04 pm UTC

Ptolom wrote:Though in this case it's more lock him up without a lawyer and threaten him with a £100,000 spell in prison (it's not cheap to lock people up).

But the threat of prison is basically free.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Red Hal » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:39 pm UTC

What an interesting coincidence:


Theresa May: "If the police believe someone has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information that could help terrorists that could lead to a loss of life, it is right the police should act. I believe schedule 7 of this act enables police to do that."

Mostafa Hegazi: "We will defeat the violence and terrorism in our battle against them ... not only by the security forces but also by the force of law and within the framework of human rights"
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Mechanicus
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:11 pm UTC
Location: The United Kingdom

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Mechanicus » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:48 pm UTC

As far as I can see, the process was this:

- government agents wanted to have the disks
- Guardian said no, then you could see how much as-yet unpublished stuff is still there.
- But you are not allowed to have the disks with this info on it
- then we prefer to destroy the disks
- OK, here's an angle grinder


Pretty much. It looks like the government used the Official Secrets Act 1989 to do this. Essentially the government makes an official direction saying you either have to return or dispose of the secret documents or the person is guilty of an offence and could see jail time. He could have gone to court to fight it (asking for an injunction on the actions of the government while those actions are judicially reviewed) but that could have led to the Guardian not being able to publish the information while the judicial review was ongoing.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby K-R » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:31 pm UTC

Steax wrote:Literally any sort of secret information can somehow be defined as 'helpful' for terrorists, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Have the home address of a person some politician is having an affair with? It'll help terrorists locate them and terrorize the politician to bend to their will!

Or a map with tourist locations on it. Or, really, anything. The law comes as close to 'we can detain whoever we want for whatever reason we want' as it possibly could.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby WibblyWobbly » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
Steax wrote:Literally any sort of secret information can somehow be defined as 'helpful' for terrorists, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Have the home address of a person some politician is having an affair with? It'll help terrorists locate them and terrorize the politician to bend to their will!

Or a map with tourist locations on it. Or, really, anything. The law comes as close to 'we can detain whoever we want for whatever reason we want' as it possibly could.

Reminds me of a few stories from a while back of tourists having their holiday photos deleted because they happened to take a picture of a train or bus station, or because they snapped a picture of a busy and crowded tourist destination that didn't have their friends in the shot. First rule of "Tourist, Not Terrorist" is that tourists are the ones who take pictures of their friends pretending to hold up the Leaning Tower of Pisa. American tourists take photos in which friends pretend to do more ... controversial things with the poor tower.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5927
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Angua » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:53 pm UTC

In response to the outcry about the use of anti-terrorism laws to hold Miranda: We need new laws to protect secrets
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Red Hal » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

No. Blair is wrong. The way to stop people leaking for well-meaning reasons is not to do anything that a well-meaning person would construe as being against the public interest and therefore in need of leakng.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: War On Journalism: London Edition

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:59 pm UTC

Angua wrote:In response to the outcry about the use of anti-terrorism laws to hold Miranda: We need new laws to protect secrets

But they have to be secret, or people might find ways around them!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests