Partner of Guardian's Snowden Reporter Detained Under Terrorism Act 426
hydrofix writes "The partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA), was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through the Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. David Miranda was stopped by officers and informed that he would be questioned under the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. 'This is a profound attack on press freedoms [...] to detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ,' Greenwald commented."
Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Land of the Free(*).
*Conditions may apply.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, you need to create a (written and involved to amend) constitution.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
You also need a vigilant citizenry.
Re: (Score:3)
That comes under :
Home of the brave (*)
Re: (Score:3)
That comes under :
Home of the brave (*)
So when 10 armed US police are beating down someone who did something minor but doesn't deserve a lynching how many brave people stand up for the guy getting beaten? Nobody ever does because anyone that tried would be killed on the spot.
As far as I can remember I've only heard of that happening once when a group of UK police were beating down schoolchildren and a crowd thought the police were going too far.
Amerika the Terror State (Score:5, Informative)
Papers, please.
Brought to you by the same people who entertained you with "Destroyed the Village to Save It" and "Fighting for Peace".
As an American ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Papers, please.
Brought to you by the same people who entertained you with "Destroyed the Village to Save It" and "Fighting for Peace"
... it hurts me every time people point out the truth of my country, and, it hurts me MORE when I realize that there is NOTHING I could do to change the situation
Indeed, my country is turning, from the best country in the world, into a terrifying state
My heart hurts, man, when I realize that, I, as an American, can't do shit to change the course of my own country
Re:As an American ... (Score:4, Insightful)
my country is turning, from the best country in the world, into a terrifying state
My heart hurts, man, when I realize that, I, as an American, can't do shit to change the course of my own country
Even more scary is that this is a British person detained in a British airport for reporting on something the USA is denying.
... but if everything does this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Vote small (independent) and buy small (independent). Your actions won't count for much but if everyone does this ....money won't control politics regardless of the opinion of SCOTUS.
Sir, I do not know which world you live in, but the world which I am from, the scenario that you have outlined WILL NOT HAPPEN, not when the vast majority of my fellow Americans prefer keep their sheeple status
Re: ... but if everything does this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:... grow a pair ? (Score:5, Insightful)
even after you managed to grow yourself TEN THOUSAND PAIRS you still ain't gonna do no shit to the Government of the United States of America
they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them
This is what "they" have placed in your head to dis-empower you. By telling you that you can only vote for mainstream parties, the big parties avoid getting any competition. You should do it anyway just in order not to be a collaborator.
plus, even if the citizenry of the USA give a fuck, who are they going to vote for ?
i mean, what choice do they have in the polling station ?
vote Republicans ?
vote Democrats ?
vote alternative ? which alternative ??
Any alternative. Libertarian; Green; Californian Independence Party; Beer Party. Anything. Every vote for an alternative is a long term threat which shows people are unhappy. It builds up alternative parties by giving them money. It makes politicians from mainstream parties take an interest in your views and try to get you back. This gives a chance that change for the worse will slow.
The worst thing is to give up.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a hopeless situation, it's an almost hopeless situation.
Don't give up yet, the world has got over far worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Vote any alternative! It doesn't matter. So long as your vote is counted and it is not going to one of the two major parties. If the third party vote manages to take even a measurable percentage of the total vote, politicians might take notice. Considering most presidential elections are decided by a percent or so, can you imagine what Dems and Repubs would do if third party candidates started getting even 3% of the vote? Sure, the third party won't get elected, but maybe some of their platforms and beliefs
Re: (Score:3)
States rights are shit. The only states rights movement I have seen with any legitimacy has been the drug legalization movement. Every other states rights agenda is about tearing down equality and liberty by circumventing federal protection of the rights of citizens.
No, what we need is a mandate that neuters the ability of states to game the federal system.
1: eliminate the electoral college. Elect the president by a simple popular vote.
Why? so that the vote of every citizen matters. Right now, the only peop
Re: (Score:3)
States rights are shit.
Your attitude is exactly why the federal government has too much power now.
Re: (Score:3)
You realise that the "sheeple" you're complaining about doubtless, to a man, justify their inaction by complaining that everyone else is inactive?
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I hear that, I remember that old Impossible Mission episode where the team is infiltrating a Soviet agent training camp only for the Soviets to start demanding papers - which, as it turns out after the commercial break, is just a training regime to prepare the agents for the American environment where the proper response to that is an angry refusal and demanding to see warrants. Because, after all, that is a very stark difference between the Soviet and American systems.
My, how tim
NSA Style (Score:5, Funny)
"No need, sir."
"But, I could be anyone!"
"No, you couldn't, sir."
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. There's definitely an issue of how legal this all was, given that:
1. There was no suspicion that Mr Miranda committed a crime, which brings up Article 5.
2. The only reason to seize Mr Miranda's electronic devices was to search them, again with no reason to believe that they were used for a crime, violating Article 8.
3. The reason they picked Mr Miranda was because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, violating Article 11.
4. And what Glenn Greenwald did was covered under Article 10.
So yeah, Land of the Free, unless you embarrass important people or organizations in the US or UK or NATO.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. ....snip....
This was the UK and the rules in the UK are not the rules where I am.
The single most obvious problem was the loss of property.
For many of us the contents of our portable devices are how we make a living. Their loss is not just a casualty loss but an arbitrary tax on an individual and in some cases on an employer.
I can ill afford to have my digital life stolen. And I can ill afford to have large capacity cloud storage that can also be stolen and taken off line with a FISA letter.
Given the length of time this individual was detained copies of his devices could be made. Based on that there is no reason I can see to not return them.
SUMMARY: grand theft.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right. This is the same crap the TSA can get away with on travelers who can't afford to miss a flight on a non refundable plane ticket.
As long as what they're confiscating is worth less than the opportunity cost of missing the flight, people will give up their stuff rather than stay behind.
UK not US (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
we haven't been quite so out of touch with reality to call the UK the "land of the free" - that seems to be a peculiarly american delusion.
We read Areopagitica and all that stuff. You mean they don't really follow it?
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Since this is the UK, it's the Magna Carta that needs to be revised.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.
It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence [factcheck.org] so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)
And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.
There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Inasmuch as liberty can be divided into positive and negative freedoms, it's most useful to to think of the constitution as a guarantor of negative liberty.
See Positive and Negative Liberty [stanford.edu] for more details.
Re: (Score:3)
Let the left versis right stuff go. Both Democrat and Republican governments increase government power and screw over the population. Neither believe in the US constitution. They are both the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The Magna Carta's been revised continually since it was written - to the extent that almost none of it is currently in law.
The UK does however have a constitution, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a fucking awful addendum to it.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:4, Funny)
Except the "UK Constitution" is about as coherent a legal concept as the US patent system...
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed ..... sounds a lot like LavaBit doesn't it?
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIPA act in the UK can put people away for life:
Judge: What is the encryption key:
Defendant: Sorry, no dice.
Judge: That's another three years. What is the encryption key?
Defendant: Nope.
Judge: Another three years in the Crown's finest. Now really. The encryption key?
So, even though it might be considered three years, its real usage can cause someone to get a life sentence without an actual trial happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
At least in the US, there is no limit to civil forfeiture. If authorities think that your possessions were used in a crime, they can take them even if you are never charged with a crime at all. This includes personal effects, possessions, and real property.
Re: (Score:3)
Used in a crime, or proceeds of a crime. Fodder for the police auction. Cars are most common, if someone drives to the site of a crime or to visit their drug dealer.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (âoeCAFRAâ). This requires the government to procure an ex parte warrant from a U.S. District Court upon probable cause before seizing property. Within 60 days after the government seizes property, it must send written notice of the seizure to parties interested in the property (i.e., the owner). The interested parties then have 35 days to file a claim for the property. If a timely claim is filed, government has 90 days to either indict the claimant or bring a lawsuit in federal court seeking a judgment of civil forfeiture of the property. If the government does neither, it must return the seized property forthwith.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them,
Not a lot of legal limits -- apparently when detained thusly one is not entitled to a lawyer or to being silent.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Land of the Free(*).
*Conditions may apply.
Yup this is the UK where we have a general belief that some freedom would be quite nice, but in reality our democracy is a bit half arsed due to trying to keep the spoiled bastards called Royalty happy, and no constitution of any kind that would let us call ourselves the 'land of the free'. No-one can really be bothered to get angry about our freedoms being constantly erroded because most of the mainstream media are already aware of the giant boot stamping on our faces and know that if they report about it then it will stamp on their faces a bit more if they do. This article is a case in point.
On the subject of 1984 people often don't realise that the book wasn't George Orwells vision of the future, it was his view of Britain at that time i.e 1948, he just reversed the last two numbers of the year.
Re: Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
No it wasn't. Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.
Partly correct,
In his essay Why I Write, Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". [1] Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism and potential totalitarianism.
Also partly incorrect
His work for the overseas service of the BBC, which at the time was under the control of the Ministry of Information, also played a significant role as the basis for his Ministry of Truth (as he later admitted to Malcolm Muggeridge). The Ministry of Information building, Senate House (University of London), was the Ministry of Truth's architectural inspiration. The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four also reflects various aspects of the social and political life of both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he viewed as the situation in the United Kingdom in 1948, when the British economy was poor, the British Empire was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs, and wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy'). In many ways, Oceania is indeed a future metamorphosis of the British Empire (although Orwell is careful to state that, geographically, it also includes the United States, and that the currency is the dollar). It is, as its name suggests, an essentially naval power. Much of its militarism is focused on veneration for sailors and seafarers, serving on board "floating fortresses" which Orwell evidently conceived of as the next stage in the growth of ever-bigger warships, after the Dreadnoughts of WWI and the aircraft carriers of WWII; and much of the fighting conducted by Oceania's troops takes place in defense of India (the "Jewel in the Crown" of the British Empire). The party newspaper is the times, identified in Orwell's time (and to some degree even at present) as the voice of the British ruling class — rather than, as could have been expected, a publication which started life as the paper of a revolutionary party (like Pravda in the Soviet Union). Note the lack of capital letters in the name. This is a feature of newspeak, the official party language. O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman).
source for both quotes http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm [netcharles.com]
Re: Update the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.
Orwell never fought for the actual Communists (i.e. the Russian aligned Communist Party), he fought for the POUM (which was a Trotskyist group). The exigencies of Russian foreign policy (Stalin wanted an anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France) caused the Communists to be the conservatives on the Republican side. For example, everywhere the Communists (as opposed to various Trotskyist and Anarchist groupings) gained control, factories which had spontaneously been "collectivised" by their work force were returned to the hands of the prior private owners.
The musn't upset bourgeois Britain and France line (the vanity of which reached it's denouement at the Munich conference) being pursued, at Stalin's behest, by the Communists in Spain was natural perceived by more radical leftists as a gross betrayal. Orwell saw it as such. Orwell too perceived the danger of the requirements of State taking precedence over the liberation of workers. I'm not sure how you think he was being "delusional?!" Disillusioned perhaps, but then he obviously didn't hold the Communists in high enough regard to fight with them in the first place.
I recommend reading his Homage to Catalonia, not only because it clarifies the meaning of works such as Animal Farm and 1984, but because it's a damn good read.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the USA have to do with this. This happened in the UK by UK agents using a UK law that was written pre 9/11.
Re:Update the constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
The implicit assumption is that they detained him for reasons related to Greenwald's publication of US secret documents. Considering the close relationship between the intelligence communties of the two countries, that seems likely.
Re: Update the constitution (Score:2, Informative)
Presumably, he was detained for leaking information against the NSA, a U.S. agency. That is what the U.S. has to do with this.
Re: Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
He also leaked documents about GCHQ, including some quite embarrassing ones (or hopefully quite embarrassing ones) that showed GCHQ was basically being partially funded by the NSA and acted almost as a subcontractor to them. The fact that one countries signals intelligence agency might be paid for by a different one is quite amazing and their attitude of "we've gotta make sure we deliver the Americans the goods" absolutely scandalous.
No, the British government has plenty of reasons of its own to try and kick Greenwald. Unfortunately Parliament has been much sleepier than Congress when it comes to GCHQ abuses. Hague lied in front of MPs and the entire country, and just like Clapper nothing has been done about it. Unfortunately the British Parliament doesn't seem to have an equivalent of Amash right now, so it may well be that the issue simply dies there in deafening silence. MP's are all too intimidated by the intelligence agencies to do anything about it, and sadly they have a long track record of illegal surveillance that started long before 9/11 (dating from the time of the battles against the IRA). Although Congress routinely wipes its ass with the constitution, at least it gives Americans a rallying point and something concrete to get upset over. The lack of one in the UK means it's easier for the government to walk over basic principles.
Re: (Score:3)
Although Congress routinely wipes its ass with the constitution, at least it gives Americans a rallying point and something concrete to get upset over. The lack of one in the UK means it's easier for the government to walk over basic principles.
We could rally round the Human Rights Act / ECHR, but somehow the mainstream media (and the Tories) have convinced lots of people that it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is well known that the UK is a lap dog of the US so I'm sure they did this at the bidding of Obama.
Re: Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Update the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
US security agencies originally set up by UK security agencies during WWII
Not really, the brits had spies in the Nazi party that were planted as teenagers from Cambridge decades earlier. Also google the history of "Betchly Park", it's very closely related to early computers and played a pivotal (and until fairly recently, top secret) role in the outcome of WW2. Betchly was the granddaddy of the modern UK/US secret service. The UK agencies taught the US agencies how to decode German messages, together they used this knowledge to sink the German submarine fleet, later the same methods were used to crack Japanese codes and (for example) set up the naval ambush at the battle of midway. After the war the two nations managed to keep their code breaking secrets to themselves until the 60's when allies and enemies alike realised they had been getting dressed in front of an open window.
The two spy agencies shared the talent of men like Turing to defeat a common enemy. Signals intelligence was born and they have been tucked up in bed together ever since. Over the last few decades they have expanded their club to include rock solid allies such as Australia and Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Update the constitution (Score:2)
by fey000 (1374173) Alter Relationship on 2013-08-18 16:10 (#44602353)
Land of the Free(*).
*Conditions may apply.
I've never heard the UK called the "Land of the Free..
Yeah its the Queen's backyard and supply of labour. I have a copy of the Australian constitution right here and thats pretty much what it says.
Play it their way (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.
I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.
Re: (Score:3)
perhaps randomly permuted to suggest the use of stenography.
Re:Play it their way (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or can you show a receipt for that stuff?
Re:Play it their way (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.
I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.
Are you insane?! They would jail him for possession of Kitty Porn!
Re:Play it their way (Score:4)
I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.
If they insist on calling everyone and everything a terrorist, might as well turn everything into terrorism... I mean, if you're going to be treated like a criminal, what's there to hold you back from actually being a criminal then? Distribute SDcards that melt when connected to a computer, fill up harddrives with spyware and malware... encrypt everything with incriminating-sounding names and impossibly-long keys.
There's no deterrent to terrorism if everyone is treated like one -- it's criminal law theory 101. When everything results in the death penalty... the law effectively has zero deterrent value. Whether you steal a candy bar, or the moon, it all means the same. Zero tolerance leads to people concluding... hey, if you're gonna go at all, go big.
Re:Play it their way (Score:5, Funny)
I think David Miranda should travel with a suitcase full of interesting and time consuming devices. How about core memory, punch cards, paper tape, files-11 formatter shadow sets on SCSI-1 disks, RL02 disks and zip disks, just for a start?
Also I forgot 300 baud FSK data on audio cassettes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Play it their way (Score:4, Funny)
Distribute SDcards that melt when connected to a computer
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newspaper.
Sorry it is only available on SD cards.
Waiting.. (Score:2)
For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..
Re:Waiting.. (Score:5, Informative)
For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..
In the UK, you don't have Miranda rights.
It's up to you to decide if that's a joke or not.
Re:Waiting.. (Score:5, Funny)
Nor do you have the right to contact a solicitor, as this is ostensibly about terrorism. Can't have the proper climate of fear with pesky lawyers running around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waiting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seven mistakes that cost De Menezes his life [independent.co.uk]
Games consoles? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They took his electronic devices (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if he gets them back, would you trust a device that has been alone with a spook?
Re:They took his electronic devices (Score:5, Funny)
would you trust a device that has been alone with a spook?
Not before you wash it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Partner" (Score:5, Informative)
Call him boyfriend or spouse or something. Partner makes it sound like he might have been involved in the journalistic work (and detaining him would still be wrong).
Instead, they're targetting the journalist's relationships. It's absolutely despicable.
Re:"Partner" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
... you know, some of us use the term partner because we wish to emphasize our commitment to each other, instead of the sex of our lover. Especially considering that not everyone fits into the boxes of 'man' and 'woman', thus 'wife' and 'husband' are poor fits. This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck, who deserves to be tied up in a public square and everyone who wants to given a free punch to his face. Don't worry... we won't let him die. Doctors will be on hand to stitch him back together again... and we'r
Re: (Score:3)
... you know, some of us use the term partner because we wish to emphasize our commitment to each other, instead of the sex of our lover.
If that is the case then "husband" would be an equally despicable word.
Re:"Partner" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Glenn's own word [theguardian.com]! I'm in a civil union with my "partner" and I don't particularly mind this term. Although I agree it can be confusing, most of the time people get what you mean by context. When I marry him this November, i'll call him my "husband" but not before then. You can blame the homophobes for creating this dual tier of unions but it does exist and I might as well use the proper confusing term as much as possible to emphasize just how idiotic it was that until just recently I couldn't get married.
And in a written article, without any context to convey whether this is a personal or business relationship, the term "life partner" would be much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Partner implies that he was his journalistic partner in Snowden case.
Re:"Partner" (Score:5, Informative)
Partner makes it sound like he might have been involved in the journalistic work (and detaining him would still be wrong).
He is involved - he was returning from a trip to Berlin to work with Laura Poitras the documentary film-maker whom Snowden also reached out to. The trip was paid for by Greenwald's newspaper, the Guardian.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3)
Thats a lot of electronics (Score:2)
He travelled with a laptop, phone and games consoles? What did he have ? A Wii and a PS2 to use on the plane?
Ultimately self-defeating (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, just remembered it is illegal in the UK not to remember a password when the Authorities want you to decrypt something
Looks like similar things happen in the US. [slashdot.org] A damn shame.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "Cloud" you mean "The Pirate Bay" then that may be exactly what they have done. [slashdot.org] With a little help from mr. Julian in the London office of course.
Damn Journalists (Score:5, Insightful)
They're the worst kind of terrorist. Fighting with Pen And Truth and using the internet as IED and WMD.
The loyal ones write about what the government want you to believe.
Then there is a bunch of them that write about oil spills and the banking system.
But the worst are those that turn against their government and write the truth.
Tar, Feathers, etc (Score:3)
Some assembly required.
The kids (Score:2)
"Getting even" - what a child's play!
Grown-ups? No way Jose...
Obvious lesson. (Score:3)
When traveling internationally, make backups. And don't take anything remotely incriminating - even if it means reformatting the laptop. Any data you need to work with, store online somewhere.
And if you really want to annoy those who seek to annoy you, take the family photo album and be happy knowing that some low-level agent is going to have to spend eight hours looking through the library of pictures of people standing around.
Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance file (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a chicken game [wikipedia.org]. If many key wikileaks people would suddenly disappear, then Snowden (or other heroes) would probably release both encrypted insurance files and the encryption key to the smaller (49GB) insurance file. At least I hope that's what they are prepared to do. Then the NSA and GCHQ would probably have stopped the attack, at least for a moment, and considered the nature of payload data in the first insurance file. Based on that payload NSA might then choose to risk the release of the 349 GB file or they might stop their attack... maybe even for good. To prepare for the next attack phase Snowden (and other heroes) might again have split the remaining 349GB file into a 300GB and 49GB file - the small file being there again as a similar first response tool, but also the key to the nuclear option file (349GB) might also be released at any time.
Basically the NSA and GCHQ had to get this message.
This is so stupid, Snowden is obviously an American Patriot, who still isn't really seeking to harm his country... a country that is trying to harm him as much as it can. It is not very common that asylum seekers keep protecting the country that is doing all it can to harm the asylum seeker. Thus, the today's release of encrypted insurance files was probably just an expected reply to the earlier provocation by the NSA and GCHQ.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a bad theory, apart from the fact that Glenn Greenwald received a phone call - from a "security official at Heathrow airport.", only identified by his number 203654 - that
[his] partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."
Enough with the euphemisms! (Score:4, Insightful)
"David Miranda [...] was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities [...] the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual."
If direct, honest language were used, rather than euphemisms aimed at making the evil sound innocuous, the news report would say that Miranda was "abducted and held prisoner" for nine hours, not that he was merely "detained" or "held".
"Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles."
In other words, after nine hours of intimidation, they robbed Miranda of several thousand dollars worth of his personal property.
It's clear who the criminals are here, who are the true menace to society.
There ma be a bit more here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies (Score:5, Funny)
This discussion [wikiquote.org] suggests this is a spurious quote, like most attempts to lend prestige to a banal remark by attaching this writer's name to it.
"The spurious quote, like most attempts to build prestige from mediocrity, requires attaching things to it."
-Voltron
Re: (Score:3)
in US v Franklin et al [wikipedia.org], Rosen and Weissman were charged with " "Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it", and Rosen was charged with "Communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it,"
The government believes that Assange conspired with his sources and communicated to his readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a journalist, so not protected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being the 'partner' of a journalist does not entitle you to the normal freedoms of actually being a member of the press
No, but he's still entitled to the normal freedoms of being a fucking human being.
Re:Not a journalist, so not protected... (Score:4, Insightful)