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

361–370 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#361

Post by epo »

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…

> 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.

They are MUCH cleverer than this, it is likely to have been a deliberate provocation to try and get Greenwald to do something rash. It is also a sign that the gloves may be coming off.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#362

Post by cabalamat »

antimagic wrote: post #353
cabalamat wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder from how high up this order came. I doubt very much if the police would do this off their own bat. What motive would they have to do so? So it must have come at least from the Foreign Secretary, but more probably the Prime Minister. The UK government is currently a coalition. The minor partner, the Liberal Democrats, tend to take a slightly more pro civil liberties line than the two big parties. Did they k…

Well one motive that the police might have is if they have gone a bit rogue and want to hide that fact from their political masters, but feel that they are at risk of being exposed by Snowden / Greenwald. I'm not saying that this is the case, just that I find it every bit as plausible as the politicians getting all Machiavellian (most politicians just aren't clever enough to get away with that sort of thing). What wo…

> Well one motive that the police might have is if they have gone a bit rogue and want to hide that fact from their political masters, but feel that they are at risk of being exposed by Snowden / Greenwald.

Maybe. But if you've dug yourself into a hole, doesn't it make sense to stop digging?

> What would you do if you were the head of the spy agency, and you think that Greenwald has information showing that you are spying on your own politicians?

They have several options:

(1) Point out to the politicians that they agreed to it (which they probably did, if only passively)

(2) Kill Greenwald. Unlikely to work since Snowden has probably spread any documents widely around by now.

(3) Threaten Greenwald. Less publically than what they did.

(4) Use the information on the politicians to blackmail them into keeping quiet.

(5) Suggest to the politicians that the policy, though done for the right reasons (defence against terrorism, keeping in with the Americans, blah blah blah) may have gone too far and should now be looked into.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#363

Post by moconnor »

chiph wrote: post #162
throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #12

Greenwald just posted his own account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." D…

but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 Inspector Javert?

Did inspector Javert have a number? The prisoner in Les Miserables was 24601.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#364

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

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…

Of course they care. Everyone I have asked whether techy or otherwise has said the government has no business reading people's e-mails etc.

This has been news for two months now and it continues to be news. It affected US-Russia relations, its big in Brazil, Germany. There was a vote which almost succeeded in defunding the NSA. Ordinary people do care and opinion polls show it.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#365

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

throwit1979 wrote: post #166
javert wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do you propose as a solution? (And you're not obligated to have one. I agree with what you're saying here, and I don't know of any solution.)

The first, obviously, is swift and violent revolution. Historically speaking, totalitarian power has only ever succumbed to greater power. Obviously this is not an option I would advocate or consider. Nor is it an option that's even possible. Drunk NRA members with Mini-14s versus the US Naval Carrier Fleet, USMC, and USAF, all of which are provided with dossiers on high value targets sympathetic to the cause provide…

There is a political solution. Public opinion holds great sway. So the politicians may go on a uturn to keep their jobs.

There is a legal solution. Courts may yet declare this unconstitutional.

Then there is a voting solution. People voted for Obama because he promised to get rid of all this. As Bush said fool me once, you cant fool twice. So people might in 2016 elect someone who has a record of being against these measures.

Plenty of solutions before a violent revolution. See for example the transition from The McCarthy era.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#366

Post by beedogs »

chii wrote: post #336
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.

It'd be interesting if the "interrogation" of suspected "terrorists" have to be video-taped, and then after the fact, released publicly for scrutiny. I think audit trails and accountability (and the threat of punishment for those who abuse their power) will curtail such civil liberties abuses.

That's why there aren't any.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#367

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

jcromartie wrote: post #299
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…

> 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_Je…

It was a mistake in all the confusion right after 7/7 bombing of London tubes. Tragic, but completely understandable.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#368

Post by randomsearch »

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…

I suspect it is actually quite straightforward. After 9/11, security services were given free reign to do whatever they thought necessary to prevent a similar atrocity. Many laws were passed that would never have been considered if 9/11 had not occurred. I don't believe most politicians were taking advantage of the situation, rather they were threatened and scared by what happened and over-reacted.

The recent PRISM scandal has exposed the results of this short-term and irrational behaviour, and now the UK and US governments are embarrassed and angry. Either they regret their surveillance of their own citizens, or else they still believe in it and are angry at the revelation. So rather than repair the situation, they're making it worse.

The final component is that extraordinary powers will always be abused, eventually. And this is probably what we have seen here.

I don't believe in any huge conspiracy, just a political elite that is often incompetent, and (particularly in the UK) stuck in the past.

It now feels impossible to criticise other countries for their appalling human rights records. We don't respect democracy or freedom, so how can we ever argue in its defence? The Western powers should be the torchbearers for democracy, not those trampling on it.

I think the solution is more whistle-blowing until we achieve sufficient transparency from the states involved and ethical behaviour from the security services. The EU is also already doing a great job of criticising the US and UK, and hopefully that political pressure will pay off. A change of government on both sides of the atlantic (don't hold you breath in the UK) would also provide an opportunity for progress.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#369

Post by pinaceae »

pinaceae wrote: post #346

so this is one side of the story. no one knows what happened during that questioning, why amd how it started and how his partner acted. case in point, there was this guy who stripped naked at a TSA check a while back. you yourself can easily trigger an incident like this and escalate it. right now there is one side of the story, reported by a deeply involved, non-objective actor. if you ask a parent about what happen…

and to the downvoters - there are now emerging articles that Miranda was carrying classified information. so yeah, more sides to the story, but who gives a shit because fascism.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#370

Post by Kell »

mcphilip wrote: post #205
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.

The typical reaction I've seen is snark. The most memorable one was a Facebook post: "I don't care if Obama reads my text messages. All he'll learn is how to sext." Most of the "smart" people I know, both in and out of the tech industry, are more interested in Egypt, Syria, and the large drop in US stock market indices last week. How sad is it that Orwell's dire portrayal of Big Brother is no longer as relevant to mo…

That's probably because Orwell's utopia is too extreme to happen... the steps that lead to it are too radical, and can only happen in some extreme circonstances.

So Orwell was a little paranoid... but Huxley was spot on.

Post reply on HN