The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press • Hacker News Board

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#31

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #22

tristor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful inform…

> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.

[deleted]

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#32

Post by StanislavPetrov » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.

Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.

https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#33

Post by omnicognate » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #22

tristor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful inform…

> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.

This has been downvoted at the time of writing, but it's quite right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins...

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#34

Post by StanislavPetrov » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#35

Post by Trumpi » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

Regarding point 2:

There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier.

Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl...

I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#36

Post by vkou » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #6

tomalpha wrote: post #4

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up…

> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).

I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it.

It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing.

Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#37

Post by zahllos » Thu, May 05, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#38

Post by zahllos » Thu, May 05, 2022, 7:05 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #34

D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over.

I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#39

Post by tristor » Thu, May 05, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #22

tristor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful inform…

> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.

I wasn't in the room when the decision was made, but my understanding from reading both the Steele Dossier and the published Mueller report is that Mueller drew considerably from the Steele Dossier as a way to understand where to consider targeting the investigation early on, and then expanded elsewhere after they had identified that most of it was not actionable intelligence. Mueller's investigation ultimately resulted in several convictions, so where there is smoke there is fire, but in this case the fire was burning oak wood and the smoke smelled like mesquite.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#40

Post by Terry_Roll » Thu, May 05, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

> 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.

Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career

Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.

Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605

I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.

Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!

So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?