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

161–170 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#161

Post by switch007 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #99
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.

The 2000 act listed the IRA as a proscribed group but it wasn't the focus of the legislation.

There were major changes to "terrorism" legislation between 2000-2010. The 2001 and later acts/modifications were more a result of 9/11, 7/7 and the "war on terror" (and the UK being Bush's little bitch).

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#162

Post by chiph »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #12

Greenwald just posted his own account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." D…

but would only identify himself by his number: 203654

Inspector Javert?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#163

Post by acqq »

doe88 wrote: post #159
jacquesm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... and wouldn't carry electronic devices except for disposables.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#164

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

The very fundamental underlying premise of the entire US constitution is the idea that government power should always be carefully limited and extremely well checked. It's shocking how far we've drifted from that ideal.

Unchecked power in the hands of folks with good intention can sometimes be used to great affect to achieve good ends but almost inevitably such powers fall into the hands of folks who would abuse them. More so, even people operating under what they consider to be good intentions can lead to tragedies of unimaginable proportions.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#165

Post by [deleted] »

Amadou wrote: post #114
andreyf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent was quite likely to intimidate other journalists, whistle blowers, or just people in a position to help them. It could also have been to make more public that Greenwald has a younger gay Brazilian partner, something we gloss over in this crowd, but for which he'll be judged harashly for in other social circles. I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted when Miranda was detained. Whoev…

I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted as soon as Miranda was detained. He was not, it was 3 hours later.

[deleted]

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#166

Post by throwit1979 »

javert wrote: post #111
throwit1979 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So what do you propose as a solution? (And you're not obligated to have one. I agree with what you're saying here, and I don't know of any solution.)

The first, obviously, is swift and violent revolution. Historically speaking, totalitarian power has only ever succumbed to greater power. Obviously this is not an option I would advocate or consider. Nor is it an option that's even possible. Drunk NRA members with Mini-14s versus the US Naval Carrier Fleet, USMC, and USAF, all of which are provided with dossiers on high value targets sympathetic to the cause provided by the NSA? Lulz, no contest.

The second option is equally unpleasant, but for different reasons. We would require a total and catastrophic economic collapse, such that bread and circuses can no longer be affordably provided and such that the populace becomes sufficiently uncomfortable to actually start giving a shit. THIS solution is also not advisable, since such scenarios don't offer options to guide who is elected in the place of the devil we know. The transition from the Weimar to the Third Reich offers a valuable, and scary, precedent here.

Since both of the above are unpalatable, my solution is to drink heavily and bitch endlessly on the internet while still enjoying my comfortable life.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#167

Post by davidw »

rolux wrote: post #160
davidw wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem

Bullshit.

You'd do well to read more about the Mafia and how it affects places where it's strong. They are badly governed, and generally not good places to live or do business as an honest person.

Denmark has a strong government that is quite involved in its citizens lives, but the number of them that end up dead, tortured, with their lives ruined, and so on is minimal compared to people in Sicily, Calabria, Campania, or other areas in southern Italy dominated by Mafias. And the standard of living is far higher. People are happier; with the possible exception of the climate, which is not really something either Mafias or anyone else can change on a local level unless you read some of the wackier subreddits.

Mafias are nothing like western democracies. If you're going to compare them with governments, compare them with feudal, tribal systems where family and personal loyalty is everything, and the rule of law counts for nothing.

To equate even something so abhorrent as fascist Italy to the Mafia is to have a gross and severe misunderstanding of history. They are both bad, but very different.

The Mafia is a real thing here in Italy, not just some abstract talking point for your libertarian ranting.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#169

Post by rdtsc »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
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…

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…

2 tests perhaps and a warning. I suspect they are a step ahead, and actually did think this through. Whether it will backfire or not is up to the citizens to decide. But I suspect it won't backfire enough to cause a dent.

1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose more information so they know what he has.

2) Another test is to test public opinion. So far we have seen nothing but defensiveness and accusations from the White House. That bill to de-fund the NSA had some legs but didn't get off the ground. If there is no reaction that is a good benchmark, they don't have to stop and do anything. They could even push the envelope further and probably not get an real repercussions.

3) A warning is a powerful thing. It is message to all other journalists working with NSA sources. "Are you prepared to open your family to harassment, black lists and 9 hour detentions during travel?". As some mentioned in the comments, even the Mafia has basic engagement rules to leave family members alone. That tells one the level of engagement and the mentality of government actors we are dealing with.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#170

Post by ferdo »

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…

One of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.
Post reply on HN