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

121–130 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#121

Post by GhotiFish »

omonra wrote: post #27
appleflaxen wrote: post #5

> The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned in. The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them as such. * edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

Don't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.

People did not catch that joke. I think the issue was that you didn't go far enough. The internet has people who would say something like that and mean it. It wasn't absurd enough to be dismissed.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#122

Post by davidw »

octagonal wrote: post #117
davidw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sicilian Mafia are pretty vile human beings, by and large. Compare and contrast "detained 9 hours", which is a big violation of civil liberties on behalf of a government, with "dissolved an innocent child in acid", which is just sickening and inhuman. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo Not to say at all that what the government did in this case was "not so bad", just that there is worse o…

The mere fact that it's becoming possible to make comparisons between a Western government and a criminal organisation, even if it's just to get a message across, is worse enough on its own.

People have always made comparisons. The mere fact that they're making them does not necessarily have any bearing on reality.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#123

Post by Amadou »

throwit1979 wrote: post #98
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you talk with any of your non-tech friends about this topic, does a single one of them care?

FWIW, the nephew of a very close friend of mine mentioned the topic of Snowden to me. He's a former army ranger, just recently mustered out and now going to veterinary school. He thought Snowden was a hero. His mom, who basically owns a few gas stations, has been very pro Assange and Bradley Manning for years and I'm sure is also paying a decent amount of attention to Snowden's story.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#124

Post by jusben1369 »

kabdib wrote: post #115
Amadou wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is quite possible that it was clerical. Some nameless official put anyone plausibly close to Snowden on one of however many "people of interest" type lists the UK has. It might even be a trickle down from some list in the USA. The original list may not even be intended as a "detain this person" list, but the way these secret lists work sourcing from other lists with different intents means the end result i…

Clerical for an hour, /maybe/. Not clerical for nine hours, that's planning.

Yes agree. 9 hours is way more than clerical.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#125

Post by rolux »

throwit1979 wrote: post #98
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People don't care. Never did, never will. Yet, things do change, from time to time. One way out of this deadlock of apathy and perception of apathy would be to study -- in depth, historically -- what has made power erode, often in very short periods of time, sometimes even single events. Maybe you'll come to the conclusion that just "raising awareness" is not what gets you there, and that there may be situations where people who, essentially, don't care are much more likely to bring down a regime than people who do.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#126

Post by saraid216 »

kabdib wrote: post #115
Amadou wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is quite possible that it was clerical. Some nameless official put anyone plausibly close to Snowden on one of however many "people of interest" type lists the UK has. It might even be a trickle down from some list in the USA. The original list may not even be intended as a "detain this person" list, but the way these secret lists work sourcing from other lists with different intents means the end result i…

Clerical for an hour, /maybe/. Not clerical for nine hours, that's planning.

You have an unwarranted amount of faith in bureaucratic competency.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#127

Post by monsterix »

throwit1979 wrote: post #98
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Really? If you talk with any of your non-tech friends about this topic, does a single one of them care?

I've had quite the opposite experience so far. Most of the non-tech people I met recently on buses, shops etc. seemed to understand the problem very clearly and they cared. People cared about the issues at hand and quite intensely at that.

True that the majority seems silent, but deep inside almost everyone expressed a kind of hatred towards the 'O-force'.

Let's not misunderstand people because each one of us wants to hear positive news everyday. Stuff like Kanye's baby. This is not an unexpected behavior because ordinary people like us really want only one thing: Not being hassled by assholes.

In my opinion most of the times people are in pursuit of happiness and that is also, mark my words, the sole reason why people voted the O's to power in the first place. Let's not underestimate the power of people and lose hope altogether. It's much quicker to fall downhill than to climb high in the trust game of politics. Ever wondered how many people still dislike the bygone Bush?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#128

Post by Amadou »

kabdib wrote: post #115
Amadou wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is quite possible that it was clerical. Some nameless official put anyone plausibly close to Snowden on one of however many "people of interest" type lists the UK has. It might even be a trickle down from some list in the USA. The original list may not even be intended as a "detain this person" list, but the way these secret lists work sourcing from other lists with different intents means the end result i…

Clerical for an hour, /maybe/. Not clerical for nine hours, that's planning.

No, it isn't because these lists are one-way. Once you are detained no one in authoritay ever considers the possibility that you are on the list incorrectly. There is absolutely no benefit to themselves to question the list. If they are wrong they let a terrorist go, meanwhile detaining the guy is all by the book so no risk to their job security.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#129

Post by jusben1369 »

throwit1979 wrote: post #98
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suspect you suffer from this insularity you reference. You're completely out of touch with "Main St" where this story has legs and is turning the tide against terrorism based laws. Look at quotes from various leaders of US congress for how the shift is in play.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#130

Post by saraid216 »

acqq wrote: post #67
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…

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…

> That is, Mr. David Miranda had no Miranda rights there.

I wasn't aware that Brazilian citizens detained in the UK had rights granted by the US.

Post reply on HN