UK High Court Gives OK To Investigation of Data Siezed From David Miranda 165
cold fjord writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "The high court has granted the Metropolitan police extended powers to investigate whether crimes related to terrorism and breaches of the Official Secrets Act have been committed following the seizure of data at Heathrow from David Miranda... At a hearing ... lawyers for Miranda said they had agreed to the terms of wider police powers to investigate a hard drive and memory sticks containing encrypted material that were seized on 18 August. Previously the inspection had been conducted on the narrower grounds of national security. Following the court ruling, the police will now be allowed to examine the material to investigate whether a crime of 'communication of material to an enemy' has been committed as well as possible crimes of communication of material about members of the military and intelligence services that could be useful to terrorists." Related:
Reader hazeii writes "The BBC are reporting that the files seized from David Miranda (as a potential terrorist — see the earlier Slashdot story) 'endanger agents' lives.' Given that Miranda (and other Guardian journalists) seem to have been exceedingly careful not to release anything that could actually damage national security, and that the source of this information is a 'senior cabinet adviser,' one wonders what exactly the point of this 'news' is."
It is almost as if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is really endangering agents' lives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frustratingly, it is actually possible for released information to endanger agents' lives. By using this as a pretext for searches when there's no real basis for thinking an agent's life is being endangered, it is they who endanger agents' lives, not the people whose data they search on that basis.
What are we to believe when, likely soon, they claim that some piece of data they "found" in Miranda's possession actually endangers someone's life? That the data actually endangers anyone? That it was actually on one of Miranda's drives? How would we know? This is a farce.
Privacy is obsolete. Transparency is the battle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, privacy is unenforceable. We can fiddle with our settings so they leak less data, but there is still lots of data given out, and leaking, just by having a cellphone, credit card, car, job, name and ID.
The battle now, is to end the privacy/secrecy for THEM. In other words, get gov't transparency, corporate transparency.
They won't give it up easy, their one-way information flow.
Without restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ample evidence, historically, and in every country that has ever existed for any length of time, that the government's expansion of police powers will continue until the people fight back. When the cost of consolidating power exceeds the cost of political activism, that is where the balance lays.
In today's "internet culture", with instant gratification and a certain detachment from one's peers, there is no real political activism occurring in industrialized countries that are economically stable. This has meant a rapid expansion of police powers in virtually every one of the top 20 countries by GDP.
Bluntly, the internet may give us access to the knowledge of what's going on anywhere on Earth, our collective knowledge, and does it all nearly instantaniously, but all of this information has blunted our resolve. It has given rise to the idea that technical solutions to social problems are not only viable, but preferred. It has substituted direct social interaction for abstract social interaction.
It could be argued that the internet itself is the proximate cause of the current state of affairs; It has made people complacent and politically impotent.
Guilty! (Score:5, Insightful)
Miranda is clearly guilty, then, as he certainly communicated embarrassing information to dirty red commie journalists.
Sadly, many Western governments are unable to carry out some actions they want to if the general public knows about them, simply because most people consider them immoral and unacceptable. They are, then, presented with a dilemma. They can stop doing things their electorate would find objectionable, they can try to eliminate the ability of the electorate to influence government, or they can lie about what they are doing and try to keep it secret. The third is impossible if people like Snowden are allowed to tell people what their government is doing on their behalf.
State Terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, how short people's memories are these days.
This is how the Cheka started. Countering counterrevolutionary terrorism by becoming state terrorists.
Endangering or possibly endangering...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Big difference. Former requires probability and evidence. Latter is an invitation to a fishing expedition.
Re:Who is really endangering agents' lives? (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't showing the public what "endangered" or whose lives were actually endangered. We are suppose to just believe them. The government lost the data. They can't ever get it back. It's a mute point to say that this data on his drive endangers peoples lives. It's already lost. It isn't going to be undone. If they are going to fix this they would pull there agents out of whatever situations they are in. The government was the one who endangered these peoples lives and those who took it upon themselves to work for the government in the ways in which they do.
If it does endanger lives. Well- good. Maybe it'll teach people working for the government is dangerous and stupid. Putting your life in danger for money is not a bright move. It's one thing when your fighting for a cause. But that isn't what these agents are doing.
The only people I'd have respect for are those who are doing something to stop this shit. David Miranda, Julian Assage, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, rebels, terrorists, and others. I might not agree with each and every one's cause but at least they have one which is more than I can say for anyone working for a major power in the world.
Should be prosecuted for negligence... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with the misuse of anti-terrorism laws in this case, but this is ridiculous:
a piece of paper with the password to part of the encrypted files was discovered along with the hard drive
Why? Why would you do that? What possible rationalisation could there be for writing the password down and keeping it with the encrypted data?
It's a pity there is no law against negligent custodianship of encrypted data, it might teach people to be more sensible.
Re:It is almost as if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is almost as if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, quite a bit:
"As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. "
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp [snopes.com]
Re:No political activism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most educated people were never under the disillusion that we were a democracy. We are a republic that uses democracy as part of the process to select the people who "represent" all of us. That 1% is included and our representative's jobs are to help ensure we can make money and earn a living. That also includes the 1% who seem to be able to do it more and better then the rest of us. Anyways, what you see as the 1% running the country is smoke and mirrors exaggerated due to your inabilities. I have those same inabilities but I'm not under any illusion that something is owed to me that is being possessed by the 1%.
I hate to break it to you, but social mobility in the US is lower than anywhere else in the developed world. This means that, with very few exceptions, the reason you are a member of the 1% is because you were born into that class. Born into that class, so your parents could send you to private school, to after-school tutoring, or at least one of the few good public school systems. Born into that class, so your parents could pay most of your college costs, allowing you to start life free of crushing debt. Born into that class, so the people you know and the language you use let you fit into the culture at the top of business and corporate structures.
We'll hold up and laud the dozen or so people who do manage to pull themselves out of the gutter, but the opportunities available to the 99% pale in comparison with the smorgasbord of options presented to the 1% or the 0.1%