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

301–310 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#301

Post by rdl »

jacquesm wrote: post #291
rdl wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dislike the uk for purely practical reasons (expensive and wages aren't higher to compensate outside finance, not actually different enough from the US to be interesting to me). I knew about RIP but not about the border detention issue. My international flights tend to be nonstop or via very particular airports due to weapons laws (when I was flying to Iraq often), or to Asia, not Europe. I'd also probably not go via the UK due to frequent flyer status on Star Alliance which doesn't use London as a hub for flights to continental Europe as much.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#303

Post by rdl »

sroerick wrote: post #248
rdl wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

VFW / Veterans -- their brothers died for our freedoms, now our own government is taking those freedoms away. This is the demographic we need.

Basically all the people I met in be military we're essentially libertarian and "personal responsibility" on safety issues; some of the more religious people were against eg gay marriage for moral/religious reasons. I don't think most of the military outside the IC is in favor of domestic spying at all -- they are even pro drug decriminalization.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#304

Post by gsnedders »

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.

Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#305

Post by subsection1h »

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…

    https://twitter.com/20committee
John Schindler is a homophobic and transphobic scumbag who recently joked about Greenwald being trans like Manning.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#306

Post by joezydeco »

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.

Still, he was contacted. It's amazing that the owner of Lavabit can't even talk about what he can't talk about, yet Greenwald gets a mysterious phone call letting him know Miranda is in the process of being questioned?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#308

Post by gabrielrotbart »

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…

This is a theory only and it relates to rdtsc (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6234271) reply which is inline with my own thoughts:

9/11 and the lack of civilian resistance to a lot of the government actions which followed has (IMHO) shown that they can push the envelope and encounter no outcry. 'They' have continued the push ever since.

I would love to be corrected on this, but I can't think of another modern era when so much obvious, unscrupulous actions were taken by authorities and yet no grand resistance was put up.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#309

Post by Amadou »

joezydeco wrote: post #306
Amadou wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still, he was contacted. It's amazing that the owner of Lavabit can't even talk about what he can't talk about, yet Greenwald gets a mysterious phone call letting him know Miranda is in the process of being questioned?

First off, those two things aren't even in the same jurisdiction.

But, you know that can go both ways. Maybe the caller was sympathetic to Miranda's situation but his hands were tied by the bureaucracy and all of his fellows who were less-than-sympathetic? By alerting Greenwald he let someone else without anything to lose take action. Maybe the reason he wouldn't give out his name is because he didn't want to face internal reprisals, but he had to give his serial number because of policy so he went by the book.

I'm just saying that with such little information we have so far, it is a real rashomon situation. Also, hanlon's razor.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#310

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> Wikileaks has some of the shittiest OPSEC ever (as the Manning events showed)

I still have some hope that they are at least capable of learning from their mistakes.

Post reply on HN