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

211–220 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#211

Post by cstross »

jacquesm wrote: post #179
rdtsc wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sharp. I do think this is driven by fear and incompetence rather than malice but you could easily be right. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the various offices dealing with the fall-out from this, especially the interface boundary between the foreign affairs and the anti-terror branches.

Also note that this wasn't the US government; it was the British state, which for the past decade seems to have based its foreign policy obsessively on playing Mini-Me to the USA's Dr. Evil.

Quite possibly the idea of detaining Mr. Miranda originated from an overzealous busy-body relatively low in the hierarchy. Or perhaps it's merely meant to look like that.

(I discount the gay smear argument. It might play in the US, but here in the UK there are/have been out-of-the-closet gay Conservative cabinet ministers.)

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#212

Post by PhineasRex »

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

One the subject of "I can't believe it's not satire". I have always found the "If You See Something, Say Something"[1] videos both humorous and terrifying.

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAV1dbGPB4

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#213

Post by jacquesm »

cstross wrote: post #211
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharp. I do think this is driven by fear and incompetence rather than malice but you could easily be right. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the various offices dealing with the fall-out from this, especially the interface boundary between the foreign affairs and the anti-terror branches.

Also note that this wasn't the US government; it was the British state, which for the past decade seems to have based its foreign policy obsessively on playing Mini-Me to the USA's Dr. Evil. Quite possibly the idea of detaining Mr. Miranda originated from an overzealous busy-body relatively low in the hierarchy. Or perhaps it's merely meant to look like that. (I discount the gay smear argument. It might play in the U…

With a little luck time will tell. It would be too much to hope for a leak.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#214

Post by junto »

I apologise for my country's idiotic and rude behaviour. I will make sure that I vote for none of the political parties that currently run the country, nor the previous one, as none of them can be trusted.

Again, sorry. Our country is being run by fuckwits. We keep voting for different parties but it doesn't seem to make a difference.... Hang on a sec....

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#215

Post by alextingle »

mbesto wrote: post #189
alextingle wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My non-tech friends care quite a lot about this story too.

I've seen a few comments that say the same thing. Care to elaborate how far their "care" really goes? Are they doing something about it, or is just like any other news in America where it's dinner-table conversation, but nothing else.

Frankly, I don't think this has got beyond the "dinner table" stage anywhere, outside of a very few activists. It's early days yet, though.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#217

Post by jacquesm »

dsuth wrote: post #209
rdtsc wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Another possible pre-meditated outcome: 4) Highlight the fact that Greenwald is in an openly gay relationship in an attempt to discredit him / colour what he's saying in a personal light. Sadly, a large part of the conservative base will cling to this I think.

The conservative base in the UK? If not then how do you see the link, he was held in the UK, not the US?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#218

Post by rmk2 »

legutierr wrote: post #210
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.

I'm kind of confused by what you consider the "general public" here. Right now, in addition to this being the top story on HN, it is is on the default reddit front page at #9 and rising. It's also on the front page of the New York times website, and also in the top three headlines at news.google.com. Google reports 25 articles most being published in the last hour. By these measures, it seems to me that a lot of peop…

Neither the BBC, Independent, The Sun nor Daily Mail report on it; q.e.d., the "general public" doesn't care.

Edit: The Sun does, however, have boobs on its homepage, the Daily Mail talks about celebrities and the BBC's international site talks about Syria, Gibraltar and Usain Bolt, with its England page concerned with assisted suicide, a rider who died after a horse accident, something about climate activists and this gem: "Leicester Globe pub closes over anti-military rumours"...

Edit 2: Colour me impressed, the Telegraph not only reports on it on its frontpage, it also has an additional quote by an Amnesty International spokesperson. That's at least something, I suppose?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#219

Post by rdl »

I'm curious exactly what you have to do in transit through the UK if detained and questioned. I'd presumably identify myself, and comply politely for a few minutes, but once it became pretty clear I was going to miss my flight, I'd want to know the various options. I have zero interest in being in the UK if in transit, so "we're going to send you back to Germany" "do it, then" is fine. Or, "you're an asshole, we're going to put you on the next flight to Brazil and never let you enter the UK" is also fine. The risk would be that "actively non-cooperative" is a sign of "is a terrorist" and then you get the free flight to Cuba.

It seems obvious that a targeted person should travel with a lot of older/disposable devices full of lightly encrypted but legal "NSFL" material, like medical/battlefield/surgery photos or, depending on the country, various types of legal porn. Or perhaps Slavoj Zizek books sans title information.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#220

Post by straight_talk_2 »

ams6110 wrote: post #113
mythz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none. Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process has the most influence.

And this time around, let's hope we are a bit more curious about the "change" we are voting for.

Voting for a very small set of preselected candidates, endorsed by either wing of the elite party and mass media has zero chance of changing anything.
Post reply on HN