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

191–200 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#191

Post by jacquesm »

pbreit wrote: post #188
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.

My sense from obama's recent remarks is that there is definitely some change under consideration as a result of the snowden revelations and greenwald's important involvement. So I disagree with you pretty strenuously. And I do think more people care about this than you think, both in the tech and non-tech worlds.

Obama is on the record saying that these changes under consideration have nothing whatsoever to do with Snowden, Greenwald or the leaks.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#193

Post by alan_cx »

Tossrock wrote: post #94

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

As a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally every country on earth..... the UK?

Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it?

All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam.

TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#194

Post by jrockway »

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.

Where did it say that you could not refuse to answer the questions?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#195

Post by jacquesm »

paganel wrote: post #177
jonlucc wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called "Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of his time: > There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they think are…

There is a reason why that proverb about studying history and repeating it exists. Too bad not many people like to study history, it is not like we haven't been here before.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#196

Post by straight_talk_2 »

scarmig wrote: post #110
straight_talk_2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it can still turn, but definitely not quickly. It will take a huge amount of effort and blood to take the power away from the sociopath banksters and their puppet politicians, military and media. IMHO it is very unlikely as very few people in the developed countries today care about political power and modern weapons, like drones and PRISM, are very anti-democratic in nature.

It's easy to come up with a monocausal explanation of all that's wrong in today's society. But that doesn't correspond to reality, and propagating it does nothing but encourage people to build strategies on false premises. Those "sociopath banksters" might have a long list of sins and villainies, but that doesn't mean that they're the ones at fault here. Oppression is a system, not a rational order directed by a sing…

This is an excellent example of newspeak - looks and sounds like speech, but completely lacks meaning.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#197

Post by rolux »

davidw wrote: post #167
rolux wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

Trust me, I know such places, and I have no romantic notion of the Mafia. But I think there's a way to compare things that doesn't equate them. Same for the Greenwald quote in the grand-grand-grand-...-parent.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#198

Post by rdl »

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 number of random people who ask me about NSA spying now vs. 6 months ago is huge.

The DEA partnership basically won over minorities, drug people, young people.

You could probably find ways to make this an anti-immigrant issue in general (spying on foreigners; obviously if you're Muslim or brown, but maybe it could somehow extend to Chinese immigrants too?)

Tech people hate it naturally. Business people (other than defense contractors) hate it because it makes doing business harder, particularly if you're doing business with Europe or other international business.

This abuse of Greenwald's lover might win over gay people.

Gun people were already super suspicious of the government since Sandy Hook w.r.t. registry and confiscation (honestly for the entire Obama administration, and even during Bush, and definitely during Clinton, too, but more so now)

Right wing people are suspicious due to IRS and general hatred of Obama. "NSA shares records with IRS" would be a great extension to the story, but even lawful IRS subpoena of electronic records supports the case for strong crypto under the control of the end user.

All we need is for NSA records to be used against Christians (pro life groups? I'm finding it hard to find ways NSA spying is specifically anti mainstream Christians) to essentially have 80% of people on the side of freedom, each for his own reason and maybe totally different from the others.

The only people left on the other side are die-hard militarists, defense contractors, and the political class, or people who are irrationally putting hypothetical safety over even their own liberty (I'd expect people to sacrifice unused liberty or the liberty of other people for their own hypothetical safety, always).

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#199

Post by ferdo »

And one of the foot soldiers of the Powers That Be weighs in:

"Glenn, Glenn - did you really think there'd be zero consequences for you and those close to you? I expected Ed to believe WL lies, but you?"

- John Schindler (@20committee) August 18, 2013

https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#200

Post by alan_cx »

rdtsc wrote: post #169
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…

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…

Useful test for Greenwald and the Guardian too, no?

Useful to run this partner through an airport with some clean electronics to see what the reaction would be and to perhaps see how far the British are prepared to go to please our Us masters.

That test of public reaction, it can go two ways.

Post reply on HN