Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship

UK Government Destroys Guardian's Snowden Drives 508

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the and-then-the-internet dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Destroys Guardian's Snowden Drives

Comments Filter:
  • Good! (Score:5, Funny)

    by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:04AM (#44614569) Journal
    With the drives destroyed, and the leaks plugged, we can all get back to our normal lives under the new heightened levels of paranoia.
    • Re: Good! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:14AM (#44614617)

      ... thus solving the problem once and for all!

      But

      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

      • Re: Good! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by colordev (1764040) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @05:58AM (#44616011) Homepage
        But,...journalists are the new terrorists -right! Also they also put their family to risk by publishing material that the government doesn't approve. And think about their potential children, which they endanger by not obeying the rules. If all the journalists could be regularly waterboarded, maybe they would then reveal the evil secrets they know? Journalists are also often following funerals and weddings, maybe those unmanned drones could double tap [independent.co.uk] some of those know gatherings of terrorist-journalists?

        Reporters without borders [rsf.org] sure sounds like a global network of these terrorist-journalists - "douple tap" that too!
    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rwa2 (4391) * on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:29AM (#44614735) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:57AM (#44614881)

        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)

          by whoever57 (658626) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @01:31AM (#44615051) Journal

          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.

          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?

        • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by reboot246 (623534) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:36AM (#44616685) Homepage
          If "journalists" had been doing their job for the last few decades, we wouldn't be in this sorry state of affairs right now. There aren't many honest journalists left. Most have joined the dark side and are nothing more than propagandists for the groups in power.
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Camael (1048726) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @02:45AM (#44615367)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @03:19AM (#44615475)

          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)

            by MrL0G1C (867445) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @04:58AM (#44615837) Journal

            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.

          • by jcupitt65 (68879)

            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)

              by mspohr (589790) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @10:21AM (#44618019)

              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)

          by badfish99 (826052) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @04:14AM (#44615649)
          Indeed, it may draw attention to the fact that there is NO safeguard built into the statute: which states

          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]

      • by pla (258480)
        Symbolizing what, though, will be the topic of many a journal article.

        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)

      by Teancum (67324)

      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)

        by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @02:29AM (#44615305)
        The boss said "something must be done."
        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."
    • by bratwiz (635601)

      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...

    • by Camael (1048726) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @02:40AM (#44615345)

      Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] which states :-

      Detention of property
      11 (2) An examining officer may detain the thing—

      (a) for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
      (b) while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or
      (c) while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971.

      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.

      terrorism
      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

       

      • by Vintermann (400722) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @03:44AM (#44615541) Homepage

        I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

        -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!

      • by the_other_chewey (1119125) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @04:23AM (#44615683)
        Completely and utterly offtopic, way to go moderators.

        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.
      • by Aglassis (10161) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @04:27AM (#44615701)

        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".

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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 here I see is committed by the government.

        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.

        • 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)

    by Daas (620469) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:05AM (#44614573)

    And we've been wondering what that 350 GB "insurance file" from WikiLeaks was...

    • Didn't you get the memo? It's a huge collection of cat pics. That mouse in your pocket was confusing you.
  • by plover (150551) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:06AM (#44614575) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:07AM (#44614579)

    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)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:27AM (#44614717) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Don't bother, SuperKendall is a Benghazi truther.

  • You can't stop the signal, Mal.
  • Wow nice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmai l . c om> on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:10AM (#44614603) Homepage

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:39AM (#44614789)

      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.

    • 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.

  • Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xQx (5744) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:12AM (#44614611)

    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?

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:20AM (#44614663)

      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.

      • Free speech? lol (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Camael (1048726) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @02:58AM (#44615411)

        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 :-

        English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.

        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).

      • by isorox (205688)

        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)

      by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:31AM (#44614751)

      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:5, Insightful)

      by shadowofwind (1209890) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:41AM (#44614803)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:19AM (#44614661)

    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.

  • by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:21AM (#44614679)
    They know there are offsite backups. This was intimidation, pure and simple.
  • by khallow (566160) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:28AM (#44614723)
    Was that rather pointless and incompetent theater supposed to impress someone? I doubt the Guardian has been cowed by destruction of at most a few thousand dollars of equipment. And it shows that the UK is in bed with the US with this sort of spying.
  • This guy (Score:5, Funny)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:33AM (#44614763) Homepage Journal

    Mordac the preventer [dilbert.com]

  • Zoolander clowns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danceswithtrees (968154) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:38AM (#44614781)

    ...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.

  • Inspiring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @12:50AM (#44614853)

    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.

  • by nbritton (823086) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @01:02AM (#44614919)

    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.

  • by dweller_below (136040) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @01:27AM (#44615031)
    So far, Poitras and Greenwald have done an incredibly good job of handling the Snowden material. They have been implementing a long term, strategic, plan that seems to have 2 goals:
    • * Restore the US Constitutional limits on the Executive branch.
    • * Make the Executive branch accountable to the Legislative and Judicial branches.

    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:

    • 1) Poitras and Greenwald must succeed in maintaining public awareness of the problem.
    • 2) Poitras and Greenwald must continue to be regarded as responsible journalists.
    • 3) The Public must agree that the threat of an unbridled Executive is greater than the external threat.

    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:

    • * Get Poitras and Greenwald to do an irresponsible disclosure. From the Intelligence communities viewpoint, even an immediate, complete disclosure of the Snowden material is a small price to pay in return for swift end to the discussion and discrediting the whistle-blowers.
    • * Or create an irresponsible disclosure of the Snowden material. Remember, neither Manning nor Assange/WikiLeaks did the big, irresponsible disclosure. But, they were blamed when it happened. On considering this objective, it seems to me that the primary objective of the Miranda incident may have been to acquire the secret key of the distributed file, so they could create an irresponsible disclosure.

    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.

    • by only_human (761334) * on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @03:33AM (#44615509)

      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]

    • by Politburo (640618)
      There seems to be a misconception here. Congress broadly authorized the programs, and the intelligence committees get regular updates. The programs operate under FISC orders, which provides some form of judicial oversight. Either body could shut the programs down. The House did not have the votes to defund a couple weeks ago, extremely unlikely it would have passed the Senate anyway.

      So given that these bodies have not shut the programs down, the only logical conclusion to me is that all three branches are
      • Absolutely. It seems all the posts blasting the 'President' for this stuff people intending to blast the President himself rather than the process. Yes, The US Congress (legislative branches) have authorized all of these programs, repeatedly. And people will continue to vote for them, and even I will; because the alternatives are FAR worse.

        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.
  • by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @01:48AM (#44615129)
    No need to release new leaks when they keep pulling stunts like this! What better news story could there be than new examples of neo-Orwellian boot stamping, modern-day book burnings.
  • Obama calls it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fuzzums (250400) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @02:25AM (#44615283) Homepage

    the war on free press.

  • by advocate_one (662832) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @03:16AM (#44615465)
    the Daily Mail is leading with some b0ll0x about some royal baby's first portrait photo... all across the front page... the Miranda detained in Heathrow news item is there, but buried under all sorts of rubbish about what various z-lister's had for their breakfast etc.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @03:51AM (#44615567) Journal

    These goons destroyed private property, and the Guardian is entitled to compensation. The big win in litigating this would be making the goons squirm in depositions. "Officer Asshat, what did you seek to accomplish by destroying the equipment in question? Are you stupid enough to believe that you were destroying the only copy of the embarrassing material, or were you just making an infantile display of pique?"

    The Guardian could get months of material out of that..

    -jcr

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @09:12AM (#44617105) Homepage Journal
    If we keep oppressing the UK this way they might dump all the tea into the Boston harbor or something.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...