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

281–290 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#281

Post by agilebyte »

calibraxis wrote: post #227
jacquesm wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berlusconi is pretty deep in bed with the Mafia and would not be where he is without them. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/uk-italy-mafia-tria...

Interestingly, the US apparently reconstituted the Mafia (which had been destroyed by Mussolini) to undermine WWII resistance, labor unions and leftist movements. The stuff they don't teach in school... ( http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200205--.htm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborations_between_the_Unit... )

Yes, not many fascist leaders from Italy were ever prosecuted for their crimes post war. Caused quite a stir in places like Yugoslavia. Britain was initially trying to be helpful but they were losing support from the locals (Italians) and then USA told them to back off.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#282

Post by jacquesm »

acqq wrote: post #91
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…

I guess they estimated that there won't be many occasions where they'd have to explain that at all. When the Bolivian president's plane was already taken down, who's gonna react about the "ordinary Brazilian guy" kept on the customs? Moreover, TSA already prepared the people to be numb about the inconveniences at the airports. It became hard to make news about that.

Not many people can relate to being a head of state, but plenty of people can relate to just being someone else's partner.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#283

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

vabmit wrote: post #228
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…

> 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. I think they already know through a post event review of MicroSoft's built in auditing logs. My understanding is that Snowden was a low level Windows admin that copied stuff that was either 1) in transit through a Microsoft Sharepoint server 2) anything he could…

> 20committee

Wow that guy is a dick. Tons of FUD and highly partisan cheerleading, and some pretty sad troll responses (though I'm sure he gets a lot of troll attention, which does wear down a person's reasonableness).

I can understand that someone may have a different view on the balance between liberty and security, but his view is hyperbolic, not informative.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#284

Post by thisrod »

Amadou wrote: post #128
kabdib wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clerical error, maintained for a day, with Amnesty International and the Brazilian ambassador screaming blue murder? Yeah, right.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#285

Post by 616c »

I happened to be a fairly conservative high schooler after September 11th, living in NJ suburb. 9/11 happened in my time there. I saw smoke from the city, not quite the buildings themselves, and classmates lossed parents. We were all militant after that, and someone needed to burn.

No matter how conservative my friends and I were, we saw not so long after those days Farenheit 9/11, the then controversial 9/11 documentary. No matter how hard-core Republican I was then (spending time in the Arab world later had me quickly outgrow that), I was appalled by the admission of lifer Congressman, scumbag Charles Rangel (NY - D) in his interview in the movie. He said no one he knew read the Patriot Act, not a single one, him included. No one would say no at the time to such legislation. Even as a sophomore I was appalled and said in the first real interest in non-partisan politics, we should have people removed for such incompetence.

As I said I was a sophomore then, and discovered subsequently how very sophmoric I was. Nothing is more self-serving than govt in crisis, in the alia acta est way. That was the beginning of my disbelief in my government, then all government more as each year passes. Fuck them all.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#286

Post by jacquesm »

api wrote: post #238

HN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask: Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space? I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming off. That leads me to won…

Now or never?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#287

Post by noblethrasher »

everyone wrote: post #269

For me the most absurd thing is that all this erosion of peoples rights and several wars have been justified by the threat of terrorism. I'm not going to even bother finding some statistics to post right now but the actual threat of terrorism is vanishingly small. For example in 2012, more Americans died crushed by their TVs or furniture than from terrorism. http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/st…

Be careful with this kind of argument. Among the reasons that we object to the treatment of Mr. Miranda et. al. is that it can cause a chilling effect, similar to what terrorism does.

Are you prepared to argue that the threat of home furniture will ever cause a chilling effect?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#288

Post by [deleted] »

ferdo wrote: post #199

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

[deleted]

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#289

Post by jacquesm »

jrockway wrote: post #194
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?

Nowhere, it also doesn't say they don't get to pull a rabbit out of a hat and let you stay a little longer.

Theorizing about being intimidated and kept without any form of process is different than being in the middle of it.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#290

Post by jlgreco »

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.

Over the past few months at a 'working class' bar that I regular, I've listened to plenty of people rant about the NSA, DEA, and the Feds in general, usually prompted by a television turned to 24hr news.

What catches my attention is the wide variety of reasons people have for carrying. Some are afraid that the government is going to use it to take away their guns, others are concerned about surveillance of GSM/LGBT activists, others are particularly disturbed by the NSA/DEA angle. One of those conversations was then followed up with a tirade about 9/11 and the moon landing... but the vast majority of people who are concerned by this are perfectly normal people.

Post reply on HN