UK Government Destroys Guardian's Snowden Drives 508
An anonymous reader writes with revelations that the UK government has been pressuring the Guardian over its publication of the Snowden leaks for a while, and that it ultimately ended with GHCQ officials smashing drives of data to pieces. From the article: "The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: 'You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.' ... one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred — with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. 'We can call off the black helicopters,' joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro."
The paper had repeatedly pointed out how pointless destroying the data was: copies exist, and all reporting on the Snowden leaks is already being edited and published from locations other than the UK.
Good! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Good! (Score:5, Funny)
... thus solving the problem once and for all!
But
ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Re: Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Reporters without borders [rsf.org] sure sounds like a global network of these terrorist-journalists - "douple tap" that too!
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.
Re:A show of power (Score:5, Insightful)
The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.
Re:A show of power (Score:5, Funny)
The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.
It worked, I think that Laptop is scared and will never hold a harddrive again...
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have an apply laptop, but the pc ones I have access to it's stupid simple to remove the hard drive. Only a complete imbecile would think it's necessary to destroy the computer to destroy the data. Then again, destroying the hard drive would only get rid of one copy of something you can be sure there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there now.
It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.
apply() laptop: A computer that excels at running code for functional languages.
Re: (Score:3)
to show that they are powerful
"Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.
Re: (Score:3)
to show that they are powerful
"Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.
laptdog: A combination laptop computer and lapdog.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.
Symbolizing what, though, will be the topic of many a journal article. I suppose it's a good time to be a journalist, if people are jumping up and down to help you make news?
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no better way to motivate a journalist than to tell them that they aren't allowed to to report on something. I mean, seriously, what do these governments think they are going to accomplish. Whistleblowers leak information because they are worried about a surveillance state. And journalists investigate things because they want to find a cover-up. Cranking down on the surveillance state and forcing a cover-up is only going to make them redouble their efforts. And since information can be mirrored around the world in seconds, what could they possibly accomplish? The number of whistleblowers willing to give information to reporters looking for a big story has just exploded, thanks to the kneejerk damage control response.
In other news, another whistleblower has anonymously leaked information on PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS, US government programs that are used to data-mine contacts for intelligence and criminal prosecutions because the government wanted to cover-up how they were getting probable cause to investigate DEA actions (with the bullshit DICE program). Read it and weep [cryptome.org].
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
Probably about the same as the senior officer of the Met who spent a day travelling to and from the Grauniad's Manchester offices in order to tell an editor that there was nothing in the stories of phone hacking by News International. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to go out of your way to tell a reporter that there is no story and expect the reporter to drop it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"But to others, the term "journalist" is but a ticket to fine dinings in posh surroundings, with important people"
Oh, dude, you have no idea of the realities of journalism. Too many movie cliches, I suspect. Any journalists out there who care to share their stories of copious lavish lunches with the rich and famous?
Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples (Score:5, Informative)
Definitely. There are few good sources of real journalism. That doesn't mean though that it's all about fancy meals - it's just a shift in the market. Take The Sun in the UK - it's got the largest circulation, and is only a newspaper in the tits and sport sense. The Mail is more upmarket - i.e. no tits, but any excuse to show a teenage girl in a short dress stepping out of a car. The Sun generally keeps people cheery. The Mail is the newspaper for angry middle-aged white people, who don't know why they're angry, so the Mail is happy to give them some reasons for their simmering rage. The Guardian's one of the better ones, but personally I'd go for Private Eye, The Guardian, BBC News and The Economist.
There remains good journalism out there - it's just not found alongside "Su, 18" and her smashing pair.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.
Said victory is likely to prove pyrrhic [wikipedia.org] in the long run. The only thing it did was to draw the public's attention to how the Terrorism Act 2000 can and has been abused against "enemies of the government". And how officers implementing said provisions can completely ignore the safeguards built into the statute- for example, that the powers be used only against suspected terrorists, of which David clearly is not.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually there are no safeguards. The law states that it can be applied without any suspicion that a person is a terrorist and that refusing to answer questions is a crime. The powers granted under that law can be used on anybody for any reason whatsoever. The law is that broad. The police didn't abuse the law. They simply followed a law that had its abuse built in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133 [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they didn't 'simply followed a law' they chose to victimise somebody in a very deliberate manner, they made a legal choice and not a moral choice, they flouted the spirit of the law whilst sticking to the letter of the law.
The law books didn't tell them to victimise the guy, their boss did.
Re: (Score:3)
There are safeguards. There are home office guidelines that the police must follow (they must only detain people suspected of involvement in terrorism, for example) and there's an independent reviewer who oversees the application of the law.
At least after a quick glance it seems that the police ignored (or took a very broad interpretation of) the guidelines and that the independent reviewer will be holding a triple-cunting when he meets the Metropolitan Police Service. One can hope.
Schedule 7 has been r
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so happy to hear that I can only be detained for 6 hours without cause. I was really worried about 9 hours and now that it is only 6 hours, I feel just fine.
Also, it will be nice to have a lawyer there who will parrot the law and tell me that I will go away to jail for a long time if I refuse to answer questions... this removes any doubt I may have had about how screwed I really would be.
Thank you UK for your enlightened terrorist laws.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b) [i.e. is a terrorist]
Re:Good! (Score:4, Funny)
I am slightly saddened by the fact that you felt the need to link to the wikipedia pyrrhic article. Does anyone here seriously not understand the term?
Oh man, I haven't got to say this in ages... You must be new here.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in fairness, we haven't had a good ol' official (not counting the religious whackjobs putting money in JK's pockets just to brag that they warmed their hands over Order of the Phoenix) book-burning in quite a while. And really, doesn't smashing hard drives count as the modern equivalent?
Dear governments - Don't play this game. We all know you have the ability to kill an awfully lot of us in the process, but you will lose. Ho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the drives destroyed, and the leaks plugged, we can all get back to our normal lives under the new heightened levels of paranoia.
Of course the drives were mirrored all over the internet, so by destroying the data on the drives nothing was really accomplished other than an indirect fine charged to the Guardian.... who needed to replace this equipment at their expense so all of that data can be put upon new equipment.
Really, it didn't accomplish anything at all other than making some low level bureaucrat think they accomplished a big deal that ultimately meant nothing at all.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they did something.
It wasn't effective, but it obeyed the order.
See also the cold war conflicting requirements of needing missile launch codes and needing a system that the last enlisted person standing could use which resulted in a code of all zeroes. Ultimately a useless extra step, but an answer to "something must be done."
Re: (Score:3)
It'll be hilarious when tax time rolls around...
Uh, you remember those drives you smashed to bits even though we told you not to...
Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] which states :-
In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".
In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.
Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism [reference.com] here I see is committed by the government.
Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score:5, Informative)
-Mr. officer, can you... ...
-National security!
-Yes, but please explain how...
-National security!
-I can't see how this qualifies as
-National security!
(journalist gives up, goes to speak with MP instead)
-Mr. representative, can you expl...
-National security! Trust us, we know best!
Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score:5, Informative)
This story is about the destruction of hardware belonging to the Guardian,
in the Guardian's basement.
It has nothing to do with any kind of seized property - a fact you would know if
you had read even just the summary before going off on a tangent.
Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score:5, Informative)
I think destroying the hardware implies that the hardware was seized (even if momentarily), I don't see the Guardian giving the hardware to them voluntarily.
Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score:5, Informative)
You misread it. It takes practice to read legal documents and you made a common error. You missed the 'or'. Case (a) is in use right now, but it has a 7-day clock. Case (b) or (c) would be used if they want to hold something indefinitely.
My suggestion for reading legal documents would be to be very, very careful about punctuation and ands/ors. Highlight or underline them if you need to.
This is a different case. The destruction of hard drives was done by GCHQ at the Guardian UK offices well before David Miranda was detained by the police. There is no evidence that any possession of Mr. Miranda has been destroyed. But when he gets them back, I'd assume that they were loaded with spyware.
This is an insanely broad law. Look at Section 2:
Power to stop, question and detain
2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b). (i.e. a terrorist)
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if--(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and (b) the examining officer believes that the person's presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived [at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
What does this mean? At a port of entry the cops can detain you without suspicion to determine if you might possibly be a terrorist. Basically, they can detain you for any reason whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to know your stuff.
If they were destroying these computers because there was something criminal on them then surely that constitutes destruction of evidence? And wouldn't that be illegal?
Liveleak (Score:5, Interesting)
And we've been wondering what that 350 GB "insurance file" from WikiLeaks was...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liveleak (Score:5, Informative)
A publicity stunt. If WikiLeaks had the files, they would have gone public the next with as many as they could vet, and they wouldn't have been as responsible or through as the guardian. Also the timing on that is wrong, they posted that file ages ago.
Since when does two days ago equal ages? https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/posts/561927090509074 [facebook.com]. Its not a publicity stunt it just what it says it is insurance against Assange Snowden Greenwald Poitras etc being killed or disappeared to gitmo. If the US tries anything the key gets released and the stuff they have kept back because it is to dangerous inflammatory get published to the world. Could it be a bluff yes, is it likely not a bluff if you read the even the docs that have been released have been voluntarily redacted by Greenwald and co. Its You screw us we screw you worse device.
Re: (Score:3)
What is amazing (to me, anyway) is that these links are posted on facebook. Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered. If they have facebook accounts, their names, birthdate, etc. will all be known. WTF?
Why facebook, of all places?
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered.
So? Let them register everybody. If you think they are going to round up thousands of internet users worldwide for downloading an encrypted file then your paranoia meter needs calibration. Besides if they are connected to the tracker they already have the IP of everyone in the swarm.
And it wouldn't hurt you to stick your neck out to do the right thing once in a while even if it does expose you to possible repercussions.
Not pointless at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The point was crystal clear: the friend of my enemy will get no end of crap thrown at them. The Grauniad can expect more such visits in the future, as well as any other news organization who dares publish That Which Must Not Be Published.
Re:Not pointless at all (Score:5, Insightful)
An AC who has obviously never read Private Eye...
Re:Not pointless at all (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And the Daily Mail becomes "The Daily Heil", for its initial enthusiastic support for Hitler and chums. In later years the name applies due to its irrational and angry approach to pretty much anything that isn't a village green, with a game of cricket, or a duck pond occupied by British ducks.
Small Potatoes (Score:3, Funny)
The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?
The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie. Are those reporters in jail? Don't think so. You're going to have the step up the game U.K. to join the big boys.
Bonus points for all the cameras though.
Re:Small Potatoes (Score:5, Informative)
The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?
The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie.
Are you talking about Nakoula Basseley aka Sam Bacile? [wikipedia.org]
He got busted for violating the terms of his probation, pled guilty to 4 charges, and accepted 1 year in jail + 5 years of probation.
I don't think this is the example you should have used.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't bother, SuperKendall is a Benghazi truther.
Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. (Score:5, Informative)
Let's go ahead and look at some of the "truth" you posted in response to another AC:
Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...
Except there were widespread protests and riots across the middle east in general, with the worst of it being in Egypt, not Libya. The initial statements from the US government mistakenly identified these protests/riots as the cause of the Benghazi consulate attack -- but within 48 hours of the attack they had updated information and had informed the American public that it was, in fact, an organized and planned terrorist attack.
His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.
You're right; he had nothing to do with the attack itself. But let's look at the rest of your version of events. First: He was arrested on probation violations on September 27th, 2012, weeks after the Obama administration had already announced that the Benghazi consulate attack was orchestrated by terrorists. The idea that the initial arrest was part of a cover-up is, thus, a load of bullshit. Second: He was released earlier this month, after serving almost the full length of his 1 year sentence (and almost 1 year after the Obama administration's announcement that Benghazi was a terrorist attack). Thus, the idea that his release is because everyone knows it was a terrorist attack now is absurd -- everyone knew it was a terrorist attack the day he was arrested. The explanation for why he is out of prison somewhat early is the same reason countless prisoners are released early -- good behavior and release to a halfway house.
Now let's go ahead and take a look at the post to which I am replying.
With Benghazi, it was obvious it was a terrorist attack from the start but the government blamed a video for scores of deaths and embassy attacks.
(a) On what basis was it obvious that it was a terrorist attack? Are you asserting that all of the protests and riots across the entirety of the middle east and northern Africa were orchestrated as some massive terrorist plot to cover for a single consulate attack? And if so, do you have any actual evidence of this? And if you do have evidence, was this evidence widely available (which would be necessary for it to be "obvious" that it was a terrorist attack) "from the start"? Alternately, if you are not asserting that the widespread protests/riots were orchestrated as part of any plot, on what basis can you possibly assert that a single consulate attack on a day in which dozens of people were killed in protests/riots was not simply an extension of said protests/riots?
(b) Scores of deaths -- again, do you mean to imply that you believe the entirety of the protests/riots were orchestrated by terrorists? There were only 4 deaths in the consulate attack.
(c) Embassy attacks (plural) -- What embassies? There was a single consulate attacked, and no embassies. You can't even get very basic facts straight, yet we are supposed to believe your grand conspiracy theory is the real story here.
Most people now know also they let people die there because they didn't want any hiccups in the undergoing operation to ship 400 Libyan missiles to Syria... but that's a story for another day.
Perhaps if you seek psychiatric help that day will not come.
Re:Small Potatoes (Score:5, Informative)
He is referring to the creator of the "Innocence of Muslims" youtube movie. He was arrested for parole violations, and in fact was arrested only after voluntarily turning himself in because he feared for his safety.
Context (Score:5, Informative)
Story about the arrest. [latimes.com]
Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...
His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.
Re:Context (Score:5, Interesting)
I think his plan succeeded. He wished to make the argument that Muslims are easily incited to violence, so he made a film insulting them - and the immediate reaction was a series of violent protests and a few murders, making his point quite clearly.
Re:Context (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Now that he's served his time for parole violation, he's out of prison. How normal.
FTFY.
Well, you know what they say... (Score:5)
Wow nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
They pretty much ensured that data dumping will ensue, on levels never before seen. It's going to be pretty damned interesting considering that Greenwald is a hell of a leftist, and is railing like never before.
Re:Wow nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
Greenwald was actually pretty libertarian/non political, but as a constitutional law litigator, he got sick of what he felt were a series of abuses by the prior and then current administration post 9/11. The truth is that most whistleblowers are generally conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's exactly the stupidest thing they could possibly do, with the possible exception of burning all issues of The Guardian for the next week or two.
But thugs just can't resist being thugs, just like snakes can't resist being snakes. Sure, there are copies, but that's all the more reason to smash this drive to smithereens.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's time to grow up from the arbitrary divisions like left and right?
There's more to the political spectrum than Left and Right? I hope you're not serious, because I'm just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
Re:Wow nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I hope I get democracy back.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is amazing that we (ANZUS+UK+Canada) can lecture the rest of the world about the virtues and freedoms of democracy, chastise China for censoring the Internet and making up economic figures and pass laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (mandating whistle-blowing for corporations); while we are so openly censoring our "free" press.
I do expect a certain level of hypocrisy and self-serving behavior from our governments, but am I alone in noticing this has really stepped up a notch recently?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech? lol (Score:4, Interesting)
Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.
And as if to underline the point, the UK also gave us English defamation law [wikipedia.org], with this very attractive trait :-
So you can sue someone for defamation and make them bankrupt if they fail to prove what they said was true. Pretty nifty when you need to sue say, a newspaper exposing your scandals -just sit back and bleed them with legal fees while they scramble for evidence (which you've already buried, of course).
Re:Free speech? lol (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's so horrible. What if somebody called you a pedophile. How would you prove that you weren't a pedophile? Wouldn't it make much more sense to say what evidence the person making the claim had?
Re: (Score:3)
Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.
If Her Majesty so requests, she is more than capable of instructing her secret agents to trample on anyone at any time for saying anything.
(Not saying that she did, or anything....but if she did, she sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to find out!)
This is the price we pay for having a benevolent dictator who allows us a democracy.
How's that u.s constitution working out?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to think that, in Canada, there is a large enough percentage of us who really lose our shit whenever we get even a hint that something oppressive or corrupt is going down.
I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of ... wait for it ... $90,000 of questionable expenses. It was a huge deal and all over the news here. US government officials wipe their asses with that kind of money and nobody blinks.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet you voted Paul Harper back for another go-round? Oh well. It isn't good that Scott Walker is not on the media radar currently, so maybe that is 2016 for the US.
That's Stephen Harper and he kicked that Senator out of his party because is is a real "Conservative". I'd like to see either Republicans or Democrats have the guts to kick out a Senator or Representative for wrong doing. Never going to happen.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
From my standpoint the degree of dishonesty hasn't increased, events have just made it a bit more obvious to many of us than it has been at other times in the past.
People in the US were crowing about freedom back when blacks were still getting lynched for seeking basic civil rights. I could go on with numerous other examples, from every period. The pretexts for abuse are more obviously lies at some times than at others, but always they are largely pretexts.
I'm not saying that the US is worse than other countries, and its a lot better than a great many. But there has been a persistent fascist streak from the beginning.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Stuff like this used to be mainly done on a local level, where you could always "vote with your feet" and go elsewhere if you didn't like the attitude of a particular county sheriff towards your family (whatever skin color or ethnicity you might have). Quite a few people did pack up and leave, moving from one area to another from time to time.
What is different today is that it is the federal government that is doing stuff like this, where as before they were such a small part of American life that they couldn't do anything like what is happening today. It wasn't that long ago (still in the 20th Century) when the total number of federal employees, including the military and the post office (by far the largest department at the time) numbered just over 100,000 people in a republic of over 200 million. America was governed very well at the time too.
If you want to leave America, where do you go? Edward Snowden has gone to Russia, but is that a realistic option?
Climate of fear (Score:3)
I think that generally things have pretty much been as they always have been, wild and chaotic. Accidents happen, disasters occur, people die etc.
What is different is this climate of fear over terrorism permeating our society, in no small part fanned by those in power. Understandably so -people ruled by fear are much easier to herd in the direction the powers that be want them to move. Since the terrorism scare began, overly broad and severely restrictive laws have been passed (Terrorism Act/Patriots Act),
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, unless you believe that the US has an impervious border (at which point you have issues that can't be solved simply by education) then it should be obvious that al Qaeda isn't what we're being told it is for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT BEING ATTACKED. A dozen guys armed with second hand deer rifles, working as landscapers and dishwashers, driving old beater cars, could take down the entire US electrical grid. No suicide attack necessary. If they work at the Tyson plant they could poison thousands or tens of thousands with biological agents that can be grown in home beer fermentation kits. They can make iron oxide and aluminum powder and burn out railroad bridges with simple thermite. And yet none of these things are happening. Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him, and the Underwear Bomber.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel had a real persistent terrorist problem with at one point daily bombings in its cities. Ditto for Norther Ireland. Nothing like that has remotely happened in the United States.
If anything, I'd say that Al Qaeda has been completely ineffective and unable to carry on operations that even the Symbionese Liberation Army was able to accomplish (an otherwise no-name group of idiots who managed to pull off a couple of stupid "terrorist" operations prior to 9/11 in the USA). The only place that Al Qaeda seems capable of destroying is Iraq and Afghanistan... mainly killing their own supporters for the most part (and makes you wonder why they have support?)
Re: (Score:3)
So I have to ask who is really winning this war?
Halliburton. Monsanto. McDonnell-Douglass. FMC. GE. You know, the usual suspects.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When you make something available without discrimination, your enemies and adversaries get it too.
What on Earth gave you the idea that freedom of the press was cheap? - Morals and principles have always been expensive and always will be.
Because of the original idiotic comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
A popular thing here on /. which the original poster did is to turn any story either about China doing something bad, or the US doing something bad in to a "Oh look at how bad the US is, they can't say anything to China!" or "OMG the US is worth than China/Russia, they are more free!" Or equally stupid shit like that.
In no way is China relevant to this. What's more, the idea that only if a nation is perfect that it could level any criticism at another is completely ludicrous.
It is just spin, just crap to try and hate on the US and allies for no particular reason. So the GP had a good point: China does some pretty bad shit, things that even the imperfect countries that are the UK and US might have an issue with.
If people want discussions of the problems with western governments to stay on topic, something I think is a good idea, then the first step is to stop dragging in China et al at every opportunity. What the US, UK, etc do is good or bad, right or wrong, regardless of what they say to China, regardless of how they compare to China, etc.
If you want to start playing the "compare and contrast" game, well then don't be surprised when others come back in kind.
Loss of an opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
There's every chance they had good reason to act as they did but from the outside, to me, it seems like this was a wasted opportunity. Had they forced the government to bring them to trial it would have brought shone more light on both the NSA story and the problem of the erosion of freedom of the press.
Had The Guardian won, they would have the added benefit of setting some precedent for their countrymen.
Had they lost, we would at least know where we stand in terms of press freedom; better, in my mind, than the present situation, in which the rules don't seem to be fixed and government power is arbitrarily applied.
Saying the data is copied somewhere else seems like an avoidance of the principle of the matter.
Not even government is this incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather pointless theater (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And why would the UK government need even a bit of distraction over that particular issue?
Whoops - I posted a link to the wrong article - was trying for something more recent.
I get that a lot of Brits want to hang on to every remaining scrap of the British Empire, but I think there is also a lot of the populace that is sick to death of funding expensive wars on the other side of the world. Especially when the official line is that there is seems to be no money for services and education (but plenty for spying and war).
At any rate, Falklands was probably a bad example. I don't know what the
This guy (Score:5, Funny)
Mordac the preventer [dilbert.com]
Zoolander clowns (Score:5, Insightful)
...joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Anyone else think of the scene in Zoolander? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze3hthGRbRo [youtube.com]
Did they really destroy a functional computer to destroy the drive? Could they not have removed the hard drive and destroyed just those parts that have any persistent data retention? Even including the optical drive would have been overkill-- eject the disk. What was the purpose of destroying perfectly good hardware? Just to be sure? Why not steam roller the remains and then incinerate them in an induction furnace? Where they worried about a secret compartment? Notes scribbled on the inside? What a bunch of clowns.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you asking about the movie or about Greenwald's computer? In real life, it was the hard drives that were decimated. Welcome to the real world.
Did you read the summary or the referenced article? Both make reference to "sweeping up the remains of a MacBook Pro." If they had destroyed only the hard drive(s), it would be unusual to refer to the remains of a hard drive as the "remains of a MacBook Pro." Don't you think? Perhaps taking some journalistic license to make it more interesting perhaps? Maybe.
I would like to think that the government officials are rational beings exercising their powers rationally but their actions make this a dubious assump
Inspiring (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically, guys who are apparently stupid enough to think this actually accomplished anything are the ones we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to when they say they're adequately protecting our data when they vacuum everything up?
No wonder they say they need to gather up every available piece of data they can - they're not bright enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Thank god for microSD... (Score:5, Insightful)
Utterly stupid. It's trivial to hide a microSD card, all you need is AES encryption and Saran Wrap. Just stash it under a rock, or up a tree, or in a hotel room. You've got 57 million square miles to choose from.
Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible act. (Score:5, Interesting)
As ambitious as it seems, this level of correction has happened several times in US history. I believe that these goals can be achieved if 3 conditions are met:
So far, Poitras and Greenwald have played Obama and the US Intelligence like a hooked trout. They have skillfully countered every attempt to divert or end the discussion. It looks like they have a chance of advancing reform of the US Executive branch. They may also help bring reform to England.
But now, I think we are seeing the beginning of more strategic responses from the US Intelligence community. I suspect that they are now trying to end the discussion by re branding Poitras and Greenwald as traitorous threats. This approach worked so well with Manning and Assange. Not only did they succeed in discrediting the messenger, they also turned the messenger into an external threat. Now, they can use 'Traitors' to justify Executive excess.
I suspect that the goals of US Intelligence are now:
If they can't shutdown or re-brand Poitras and Greenwald, then I expect the next step will be to create an immediate, external threat that requires an unbridled Executive.
I am praying for Poitras and Greenwald. We need their help. And their enemies are capable of doing terrible things.
Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a (Score:4, Interesting)
Laura Poitras for several years has been subject to extraordinary harassment, intimidation and searches when travelling. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/ [salon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So given that these bodies have not shut the programs down, the only logical conclusion to me is that all three branches are
Re: (Score:3)
I am willing to exchange a little bit of my personal privacy for the rights for gays to marry. That's just how it goes. It's a trade off I accept.
Keeps the news story going... (Score:3)
Obama calls it (Score:5, Insightful)
the war on free press.
Meanwhile... (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
We'd Best Watch Out (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Official Secrets Act? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem for the UK is the optics and methods of the Official Secrets Act.
If you use it in a sealed court setting, you admit you have a "spy" like situation and need a top cleared legal team. Any person facing that system is by default be facing a Star Chamber and gather world wide sympathy and much legal UK interest spins up fast.
If its in an open court, the defence and press goes to work on every detail and method. All in the open again over years. A situation most UK govs seem to want to avoid at any cost.
So you never "running afoul" of the Official Secrets Act. It is a legal tool to welcome staff into the system with a nice clearance level and hints at years in jail.
The UK would rather use other methods - if your connected to power/gov - no trial, pension but no more talking/leaks.
If your connected to codes/methods but have few friends - a public trial on other topics..
Other non court methods are also very legal in the UK.
Re:Media is in the business of making money (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, it gives time for the government to try to fix PR problems by denying certain claims, and then have the media release a document which totally kiboshes said statement with documentation supporting it's really happening.
Yeah, this has been the most awesome part of it all.
"I have proof the NSA is spying on the American people."
"No, we're not spying on the American people. Nothing of the sort. No sir."
"Actually yes, here's proof you record all the metadata of emails and phone calls and stuff."
"Ok yes yes but we promise it is only the metadata, we don't see anything else."
"No actually, see you record everything, here's the slides you use to train people how to do it."
"Ok ok well we might do that but we swear it's all
Re:Media is in the business of making money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Media is in the business of making money (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean Greenwald is manipulating the public? Good! His goals, be they of self interest or not, coincide with my goals. I want the public outraged by this, so things will change. He wants them outraged so he can get famous. Sounds like a fare trade to me.
Re:Media is in the business of making money (Score:4, Interesting)
One legitimate reason for the slow release is it keeps the issue in the public mind for longer. That actually seems to be more effective than 1 giant event.
For an example, compare the tactics of Occupy Wall Street with Feb 15 2003. I'll bet good money that you can tell me a bit about Occupy Wall street, but can't tell me what happened on Feb 15 2003 that might be related in any way to Occupy Wall Street.
Give up?
That day was the Largest single-day protest in the history of the world [wikipedia.org]. Approximately 8 million people were out in the streets complaining about George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That's about 1 out of every 500 people on the planet at the time. And it's almost completely forgotten, because there was a splash in the papers the next day, and then it disappeared from the headlines. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street stuck around for months, and by simply not ending until the police came by to beat people up at 3 AM, they became a long-term part of the public consciousness.
You may disagree with the politics of either or both protests, but my point here is about tactics - both involved massive efforts, but one was a lot more effective than the other.
Re: (Score:3)
MAC addresses are invisible after the first router, unless you use IPv6 with insecure settings. So, no, they cannot be used without breaking into things.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to know my grandparents and greatgrandparents bled in WWII so fascists like you could still be in power. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3)
It is on the Reuters front page though.
Which is even more telling of CNN and MSNBC. It was a conscious decision to not report it.