Current Affairs Surveillance in the US reaches new levels

[peterms]

 

UK Govt. Destroyed Journalists’ Hard Drives In Failed Attempt To Stop NSA Story

The plot thickens. British authorities reportedly destroyed hard drives in an attempt to stop the Guardian from disseminating stories about classified mass-surveillance projects. Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger details how security experts from British intelligence agency, GCHQ, told him that the Guardian would have to either hand over their information or have their hard drives destroyed.

The revelation is especially damaging to British authorities after yesterday’s international incident, where they detained David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, in London’s Heathrow airport and confiscated his laptop and camera.

The story has an aura of dark humor, as the agents apparently didn’t understand that the Guardian could report on places outside of London and that a destroyed hard drive won’t stop information from getting out.

LOL

Stupid is a scary trait

 

 

But of course they knew the information wasn't only kept there, and that breaking the hard drives wouldn't in itself either prevent access to information, or stop reporting.  It was a symbolic act, a threat.  It was accompanied by a comment to the effect that now the Guardian had co-operated in this act of destroying some computers, the authorities would "call off the black helicopters".

 

It's the state equivalent of a protection mob coming into a pub and saying "Nice place you've got here.  Be a shame if it got...damaged...".

[snowychap]

 

link

A Home Office spokesperson previously said: "Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

Not half as much as those who support this sort of action, you bastards.

[maqroll]

The Guardian is now suing the Home Office...

[peterms]

 

 

link

A Home Office spokesperson previously said: "Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

Not half as much as those who support this sort of action, you bastards.

 

 

No, those people have thought about what they're doing.  It's not like this action was an unintended and regrettable side-effect of the legislation.

 

Same with all the other terror laws and moral panics.  Use a fleeting instance of something bad to entrench a law, passed in panic and without any proper reflection, which cuts away our freedom in ways no-one ever anticipated.

 

I believe everyone who cares even slightly about this should meet their MP face to face, demand to know their stance on it, demand that they support the repeal of these measures, and check the voting record afterwards.  And if the MP doesn't do what you want, then join any campaign which is focussed on getting them out of their seat.  Make it personal, make it targetted, make it real.

[snowychap]

No, those people have thought about what they're doing.  It's not like this action was an unintended and regrettable side-effect of the legislation.

Some will have done; some will have genuinely thought it was trying to do some good without having the capacity to consider any other eventuality, and yet more will have supported it without bothering to consider any adverse unintended consequences.

I guess it wasn't an exhortation to think about it but rather to think again about it as the first effort was wrong (and that was obviously what the spokesperson meant, too).

[peterms]

 

No, those people have thought about what they're doing.  It's not like this action was an unintended and regrettable side-effect of the legislation.

Some will have done; some will have genuinely thought it was trying to do some good without having the capacity to consider any other eventuality, and yet more will have supported it without bothering to consider any adverse unintended consequences.

I guess it wasn't an exhortation to think about it but rather to think again about it as the first effort was wrong (and that was obviously what the spokesperson meant, too).

 

 

You're much more forgiving than me, Snowy. 

[snowychap]

You're much more forgiving than me, Snowy. 

[maqroll]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YvJpXHh48

[Jon]

The latest I have read on thsi is that  was 'forced' to reveal passwords to his laptop etc by UK authorities. How on earth was he 'forced' to do that? What kind of methods were employed? What kind of state are we living in?

[LondonLax]

The latest I have read on thsi is that was 'forced' to reveal passwords to his laptop etc by UK authorities. How on earth was he 'forced' to do that? What kind of methods were employed? What kind of state are we living in?

Refusal to give up the passwords would have meant jail time.

[snowychap]

How on earth was he 'forced' to do that? What kind of methods were employed?

I guess they informed him that it would be an offence carrying a penalty of a maximum of three months in prison and/or a fine to refuse to comply with the following:

 

 

A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—

(a)give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;

(b)give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;

©declare whether he has with him documents of a kind specified by the examining officer;

(d)give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him and which is of a kind specified by the officer.

 

 

I believe it was RIPA that brought in something specific about computer passwords and encryption keys (for non border stuff - though it may also have applied above) which carries an offence for refusal to comply (and the possible jail term for that is much more than the three months).

[peterms]

I came across a document the other day, which mentioned civil liberties and what we should expect our government to do.

 

Here's an extract from it.  I've no idea what it can be, or who wrote it - can anyone help?

 

 

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES

We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.

• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• We will restore rights to non-violent protest.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

 

[Eames]

I came across a document the other day, which mentioned civil liberties and what we should expect our government to do.

 

Here's an extract from it.  I've no idea what it can be, or who wrote it - can anyone help?

 

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES

We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.

• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• We will restore rights to non-violent protest.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

I can have a fair guess at who didn't.......

[peterms]

[blandy]

 

I came across a document the other day, which mentioned civil liberties and what we should expect our government to do.

 

Here's an extract from it.  I've no idea what it can be, or who wrote it - can anyone help?

 

 

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES

We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.

• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• We will restore rights to non-violent protest.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

 

Well, as we're all in this together, was it the Greenest Government ever?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's all getting rather sinister.

[Eames]

Again, I may be missing something here or I may have made this up?

Wasn't this guy carrying files that had been leaked by Snowden? If that is the case surely the decision to detain him is a reasonable response? Or rather... if the Security Services believed he was carrying data from Snowden they have the right to stop him, detain him and confirm or refute that belief?

The only reason this issue appears to have come about is because the Journo has got pissy over his partner's detention (even though IF he was carrying something) it appears it would have been appropriate response.

What exactly is the problem here?

[peterms]

No, they don't have that right.

 

There are legal provisions for getting hold of confidential journalistic material, involving getting a court order.

 

The government have chosen deliberately to bypass the law, and misuse a wholly inappropriate and different piece of legislation; there has been no suggestion whatever that he was involved in terrorism, or could reasonably be suspected as such.

 

It is nothing whatever to do with Greenwald "getting pissy".  It is to do with the rule of law, the government's flouting of it, and their undermining of legal rights.

 

It is set out in detail in the lawyers' letter, here.

 

It's not even about whether this piece of legislation is good or bad (it's bad).  It's about whether the government is bound by the law, or can consider itself above the law.

 

People who support their flouting of the law because they disapprove of Snowden, or Greenwald, or the Guardian, or leaks, or governments being embarrassed by their citizens finding out what they are up to, are treading a very dangerous path.

[Eames]

No, they don't have that right.

 

There are legal provisions for getting hold of confidential journalistic material, involving getting a court order.

 

The government have chosen deliberately to bypass the law, and misuse a wholly inappropriate and different piece of legislation; there has been no suggestion whatever that he was involved in terrorism, or could reasonably be suspected as such.

 

It is nothing whatever to do with Greenwald "getting pissy".  It is to do with the rule of law, the government's flouting of it, and their undermining of legal rights.

 

It is set out in detail in the lawyers' letter, here.

 

It's not even about whether this piece of legislation is good or bad (it's bad).  It's about whether the government is bound by the law, or can consider itself above the law.

 

People who support their flouting of the law because they disapprove of Snowden, or Greenwald, or the Guardian, or leaks, or governments being embarrassed by their citizens finding out what they are up to, are treading a very dangerous path.

Its an interesting call..... is the leaking/holding/distribution of illegally obtained top secret material and act or terrorism? You could make a convincing argument for both sides of the story.... I'm not sure you can say the law has been flouted in this circumstance. In fact looking at Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, there is a very strong argument to support the notion that they were acting well within the requirements of the act. Although I acknowledge that is a particularly draconian interpretation.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong in this situation..... it is a series of fine judgement calls.

Can illegally obtained top secret information legitimately be classed as journalistic material?

It the use of Schedule 7 Powers and the wider Terrorism Act appropriate here?

What is more important - the safety of UK intelligence assests abroad (if such data presents a risk) or the right of journalists and newspapers to posses/publish that data if they deem it in the public interest?

[Jon]

Manning gets 35 years. Sadly, it's not Bernard ....