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

151–160 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#151

Post by jonlucc »

scarmig wrote: post #101

Disgusting. If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terr…

Soon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#152

Post by claudius »

hga wrote: post #49
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 the same country that used a slightly later, post-9/11 terrorism act to freeze the assets of an Icelandic bank that were in the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki_Freezing_Order_2008 Icelanders replied with some good pictures: https://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+terrorism&tbm=isch Then again this is the country that inspired Nineteen Eighty-Four (Minitrue from Orewell's time at the BBC) and…

If you read the Wikipedia article[0] on the ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001’, you will notice that it is not restricted and applicable to areas other than terrorism – serious economic damage to the UK being one of them. So there is at least some slight hyperbole in calling it a ‘post-9/11 terrorism act’, even though its passage was clearly motivated by 9/11.

As an aside, what exactly is wrong with freezing the assets of a company that does not appear to plan to meet its liabilities?

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism,_Crime_and_Secur...

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#154

Post by grey-area »

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…

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.

Your corrosive cynicism isn't helping them care, nor is it furthering the debate any.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#155

Post by davidw »

calibraxis wrote: post #149
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…

On the US's murderous sanctions against Iraq (and nuking Japan, for that matter): Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Madeleine Albright: "We think the price is worth it." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Albright... ) Dissidents (those who Greenwald praises) point out that…

Inane comments like this are one of the many reasons why political discussions on HN are so bad.

The thinking that most politicians are just like people who would take a 12 year old boy and dump him in a vat of acid after strangling him is shallow and devoid of any depth of thinking on how different organizations operate.

States do dirty things, and so do individuals, and so do organizations on various levels. But there's a lot of differences in incentives, capabilities, tradeoffs, calculations and so on between them all. If you are really interested in understanding the world, rather than making the point that THE GUBERMENT IS EEEVIL, thinking about some of these differences would behoove you.

So: are you genuinely so poorly informed that you see no difference, or are you completely blinded by your libertarian propaganda as to not see any difference?

I live in Italy, and like many people, I intensely dislike Berlusconi. But, you know what? I'd prefer him 10 times - 100 times - to the sort of people who run actual Mafias.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#156

Post by arcadeparade »

jusben1369 wrote: post #140

I think this is a terrible mistake but I do wish he'd stop referring to himself as a journalist. He's a political protagonist using his platform for change. Journalist's don't "aggressively" report on stories. It matters because GG is now so tightly integrated into this story that we need to view his comments not as those of an impartial reporter. I doubt they think they can intimidate him. They probably are hoping t…

All Journalism Is 'Advocacy Journalism': http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=a...

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#157

Post by btilly »

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…

It took nearly half a year of revelations before people began to care about Watergate. I figure that it would take that this time as well.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#158

Post by saraid216 »

rolux wrote: post #143
saraid216 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have an unwarranted amount of faith in bureaucratic competency.

Adam Curtis just 10 days ago published a good piece on bureaucratic competence within the UK intelligence community: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

The film J. Edgar actually felt a lot like that. Similarly, A Beautiful Mind.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#159

Post by doe88 »

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…

Of course I can't possibly know but I agree with @acqq I think the effect of surprise worked and it was all about that in order to grab the hard drive for current and past files and his contact list on his phone. I think that if he was really prepared and if he was expecting such a move he would have tried to avoid Heathrow.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#160

Post by rolux »

davidw wrote: post #122
octagonal wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem: How to govern, how to stay in power.

Of course, a government has the power to brand a mafia as a criminal organization, but the line between legal and criminal can be very blurry, and often quite arbitrary.

If you just go, historically, by the score of committed crimes, then whatever metric you choose, governments and their agencies will beat criminal organizations by a huge margin.

Post reply on HN