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

291–300 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#291

Post by jacquesm »

rdl wrote: post #240
rdl wrote: post #219

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 g…

Oh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer questions for any reason during that 9 hour period. Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.

Funny I thought you of all people would be aware of this :)

Yes, the UK is worse. I never really got why Assange went there willingly in the first place.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#292

Post by tokipin »

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…

this reminds me of one of Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments" where he discussed this specific issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDXInEft17k

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#293

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#294

Post by jacquesm »

brohoolio wrote: post #244

How long until the organizations that protect us meet the definition of terrorists themselves?

Depending on the country some have already reached that definition. Terrorism is a nebulous enough term that it can be made to fit a large variety of entities. That's exactly why it was chosen.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#295

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

acqq wrote: post #67
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…

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…

> He was probably not prepared enough for that, most of people aren't.

For better or worse, Glenn Greenwald is very skilled in these sorts of extended adversarial interviews. As a litigator in civil matters he would spend days being obstructionist in depositions. One of them, involving a dispute with Greenwald's former landlord runs over 500 pages. It was effective enough to get the opposing legal council fired.

So anyone who's working with Mr. Greenwald is probably much better prepared than the average Joe to spend 9 hours being questioned.

I personally suspect this was mostly about getting a look at the electronics Mr. Miranda was carrying. It's basic law enforcement strategy to realize targets will eventually make a mistake and for investigators to put themselves in a position to benefit from that.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#297

Post by rgrieselhuber »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #283
vabmit wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He is a dick but he unfortunately has some ammo in the sense that the Guardian appears to have financed the trip. That still doesn't make what happened acceptable but it will assuage those who lean towards sympathizing with the NSA. The fact that Greenwald wasn't more forthcoming about this makes it even more difficult.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#298

Post by chill1 »

shawn-furyan wrote: post #274
ams6110 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that a candidate who was not afraid to make the "security state" a campaign issue, and the massive government encroachment in so many other aspects of our lives, and was able to explain the issues and his or her positions without sounding like he was regurgitating focus-group tested talking points, would do quite well in the current climate. Or it may be that the average person still doesn't care. People who…

So voting for a politician that takes advantage of a strategic opening by promising things he/she likely has no intention whatsoever of following through on is going to fix the police state? I mean, the administration's positions throughout this entire NSA scandal have been diametrically opposed to promises and assurances that Obama made while campaigning. Until you solve the problem of politician trustworthiness, th…

Perhaps structural changes in the way politicians are elected and retain office would have some positive long term effects. I imagine if it was possible to hold a direct-vote referendum on the current sitting president mid-term would hold their feet to the fire at least a little bit. Also, prohibiting advertising by political campaigns (TV, print, all of it) coupled with state-sponsored, mandetory debates between presidential candidates might force a real debate about real issues.

And assuming we agreed that those changes would be beneficial to the political system, how might we go about achieving those reforms?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#299

Post by jcromartie »

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…

> Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a history when it comes to labeling people terrorist wrongly makes it even worse.

In case anybody is wondering, the UK murdered a Brazilian man on the train with several bullets to the head after they explicitly identified him as a suspect and authorized his takedown. He had no ties to terrorism at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze...

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#300

Post by jacquesm »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #297
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He is a dick but he unfortunately has some ammo in the sense that the Guardian appears to have financed the trip. That still doesn't make what happened acceptable but it will assuage those who lean towards sympathizing with the NSA. The fact that Greenwald wasn't more forthcoming about this makes it even more difficult.

I don't see how that makes any difference, in fact if it makes a difference it makes it worse.

Detaining partner of journalist -> bad.

Detaining newspaper employee, possibly journalist -> very bad.

Once journalists will feel that they are in danger of no longer being free to do their reporting this story will get a lot more attention than it does at the moment.

Post reply on HN