Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#91

Post by acqq »

jacquesm wrote: post #79
acqq wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were able to do two things: 1) Spend 9 hours pressing the guy in order to learn any details they are interested in. He was probably not prepared enough for that, most of people aren't. Apparently, in such an occasion you don't even have the "right to remain silent!" That is, Mr. David Miranda had no Miranda rights there. I guess they had a good laugh. 2) Get anything from the electronic devices. It's reasonable…

1) That's a huge assumption. Especially given that he went to see Laura Poitras 2) Sure, but for that they didn't need to seize them, they could have copied them. I take it that Greenwald et al are smart enough to use an encrypted dead drop on the net rather than to hand-carry unencrypted bits with the keys in the head or the possession of the carrier. From the government perspective I can see only bad stuff coming f…

I guess they estimated that there won't be many occasions where they'd have to explain that at all. When the Bolivian president's plane was already taken down, who's gonna react about the "ordinary Brazilian guy" kept on the customs?

Moreover, TSA already prepared the people to be numb about the inconveniences at the airports. It became hard to make news about that.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#92

Post by jacquesm »

acabal wrote: post #72
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

I was thinking about this today--whether or not this was a smart move for the government. On one hand, it's obvious that bullying the partner of a famous journalist is going to get negative media attention. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want . Maybe they know these laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that sort of media attention ensures that generations will know what happens when they st…

Making an example of a family member is crass to put it mildly, we have a basic principle in law that collective punishment is right out. So we don't punish you for your brothers crimes and so on. To punish a partner for some perceived slight when the principal agent is not charged with anything is something that I have a hard time imagining even today, in a former Soviet Union or affiliated country I could see something like that happen but this being the partner of a member of the press it seems like a spectacularly bad move.

Greenwald has basically been provoked into doing as much damage as he can do, likely he'll reveal more rather than less now. They have taken the gloves off against the one party that was still showing some restraint here.

Interesting how places like CNN don't cover this.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#93

Post by nitrogen »

midhir wrote: post #43

About two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane and go home. Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane, casting nasty looks my way. The…

...casting nasty looks my way....

That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#94

Post by Tossrock »

As bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#95

Post by muzz »

grey-area wrote: post #22

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism lik…

> This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime

Perhaps it is, but the American people don't seem to want that. Kerry voiced a similar opinion in 2004 and Bush took great advantage by pointing that out. Popular opinion appeared to be on Bush's side i.e. that terrorism is not a law enforcement matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#97

Post by rolux »

acabal wrote: post #72
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

I was thinking about this today--whether or not this was a smart move for the government. On one hand, it's obvious that bullying the partner of a famous journalist is going to get negative media attention. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want . Maybe they know these laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that sort of media attention ensures that generations will know what happens when they st…

> Would Greenwald have done a better service if he hadn't told the world what happened to his partner? I don't know--but maybe.

Definitely not. And in the end, nothing happened to his partner. His rights were violated, for sure -- but then ask other Brazilians for their experiences in the transit zone of London Heathrow. It's a pretty much lawless zone if you happen to hold the wrong passport.

So, no. More people than you think will be able to relate to this.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#98

Post by throwit1979 »

jacquesm wrote: post #83
throwit1979 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date Why would this be a tactical mistake? The general public DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK. The government(s) know(s) this quite well. If you think for a second that detention of associates of political enemies matters to an electorate far more interested in the minutiae of Kanye West's baby, you're living in a fairy land of your own making.

It is a tactical mistake because stuff like this will tip the scales into the direction of the general public caring about it without giving much of anything in return. It's mostly downside unless Greenwald & co did something dumb, and so far they don't strike me as dumb.

Really? If you talk with any of your non-tech friends about this topic, does a single one of them care? My money is on no. And in the unlikely case the answer is nonzero, the proffered solution is always to vote for "the other guy".

It's naiveté at the highest level to think that any meaningful proportion of the electorate cares, and that a single thing will change. If anything, the State now has tacit permission to press even further down the road of dystopia.

We live in a highly insular world in which our ideas are echoed by like-minded people. In such a world, it's easy to make the mistake of assuming that the broader populace is similarly like-minded. The reality, however, is that so long as sufficient bread and circuses are provided, nobody will care nearly as much as you or I do.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#99

Post by anigbrowl »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.

This isn't new. The UK has long had wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers because the IRA were running bombing campaigns in (mostly) London from the late 60s to the late 90s. And every country has different rules for ports/airports, for the same reason they have customs posts there.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#100

Post by grey-area »

rolux wrote: post #34
grey-area wrote: post #22

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism lik…

> they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use .

I disagree. These are exceptional powers (they deliberately negate several important rights like the right to know the charges against you and have a lawyer present), and if they are being misused, they should be taken away.

They are justified to the population on the basis of extreme measures for extreme opponents - if that is shown to be a smokescreen and the security services to be inveterate liars, I think the population will be far less inclined to accept any calls for special terror laws.

The war on terror as an excuse just became rather more transparent.

Post reply on HN