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

421–430 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#421

Post by noisy_boy »

btilly wrote: post #157
throwit1979 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It took nearly half a year of revelations before people began to care about Watergate. I figure that it would take that this time as well.

In fact that could be one of the reasons behind the revelations/leaks coming out in bite-size doses. To counter the short public memory, instead of a big dump of the information with short shelf-life, a drip feed of revelations/news on abuses and overreaches would help keep the issues in line of sight and would help cementing public opinion.

People may not be up in arms and shouting in streets now, but once the public opinion takes root in the mind, it would be hard to change come election no matter who promises what.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#422

Post by hahainternet »

vidarh wrote: post #420
hahainternet wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I said was that the actions being speculated are blackmail. Blackmail of the POTUS. Not a very moral or smart decision. The fact that you instantly jump to 'licking the boots of power' indicates to me that you don't tolerate any dissent from your views.

No, the actions being speculated were about the possibility of retaliation if the government pisses off the wrong journalists too much. For there to be blackmail, someone would need to make a threat in advance.

Retaliation for a perceived offence can be blackmail. I'm not suggesting the poster was actually blackmailing anyone, but it's hardly the most moral position to take.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#423

Post by vidarh »

Kabacaru wrote: post #398
jacquesm wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be due to them receiving D-Notices.

Or a super-injunction

The super-injunctions were ridiculed pretty much out of existence. TV newscasters talked so much about them they started letting names slip or details sufficient that "everyone" knew. Twitter was overflowing of people publishing the names. TV comedians ridiculed anyone involved, and made jokes about how they'd get arrested, faked calls from their lawyers to shows they were on, and in general showed no respect for them.

If anyone issued a super-injunction over this, the British media would see it as a challenge as to who could ensure the details were insinuated in such as way as to ensure the widest distribution.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#424

Post by jessaustin »

straight_talk_2 wrote: post #55
cvet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really interesting bit of speculation. Obama's consistently "just off" statements (i.e. saying an executive order that hadn't been implemented yet would have protected Snowden) make me think that Obama & his advisers doesn't have a good handle on what the NSA is doing and how the law applies to the "secret state." One could say that "Obama is lying," which may be perfectly true, but it could also be that th…

Obama is nothing, but a puppet. His masters surely have blackmail material to absolutely ruin him - say a recording of sex with an underage.

I don't think it even has to be that extreme. When one starts out as a politician, even small-potatoes stuff like inflated tax exemptions would be enough to influence the ambitious. Later, once one is president, they have recordings of all the noxious shit you've done at their command. This is basic spy agency tactics.

It's quite probable that Obama knows about shit the various agencies have done that would make GG's hair curl. It's also quite probable they've done much worse shit that he doesn't know about.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#425

Post by jacquesm »

jusben1369 wrote: post #419
ferdo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.

"He said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than before" and would publish "many more documents". "I have lots of documents about the way the secret services operate in England. Now my focus will be there as well," he added. "I think they are going to regret what they did." - Does it sound like he is now reporting impartially or is he clearly a participant in the game with revenge on his mind…

Rescheduling priorities in light of developments is fair.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#426

Post by pinaceae »

eCa wrote: post #378
pinaceae wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it terrorism to carry classified information? > Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. [1] Ok... Someone with a lot of power is too easily intimidated. [1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition

no, but if the person is not allowed to carry/possess it, he/she might be breaking laws. the term 'classified' exists for a reason.

it is all 'ifs', which is my point - not much is known, the so called fog of war is still in full effect but people around here are already jumping to conclusions.

might have been a nasty way of intimidation, might have been a security clerk reacting to standard procedure. no one here right now knows.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#427

Post by jessaustin »

hahainternet wrote: post #409
jessaustin wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop licking the boots of power for a second and think about what you've said: literally, that imagining questions one might ask of misbehaving public servants is worse than the original misbehavior of those public servants. What color is the sky in your world?

No, what I said was that the actions being speculated are blackmail. Blackmail of the POTUS. Not a very moral or smart decision. The fact that you instantly jump to 'licking the boots of power' indicates to me that you don't tolerate any dissent from your views.

The actions cited: investigating the behavior of government, and questioning public servants about that behavior. Which is basically the role of the fourth branch; read any founding father. But you describe this, with a vindictive imagination zealous enough to do any federal prosecutor proud, as "blackmail". Journalists, doing their jobs. What. The. Fuck.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#428

Post by hahainternet »

jessaustin wrote: post #427
hahainternet wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I said was that the actions being speculated are blackmail. Blackmail of the POTUS. Not a very moral or smart decision. The fact that you instantly jump to 'licking the boots of power' indicates to me that you don't tolerate any dissent from your views.

The actions cited: investigating the behavior of government, and questioning public servants about that behavior. Which is basically the role of the fourth branch; read any founding father. But you describe this, with a vindictive imagination zealous enough to do any federal prosecutor proud, as "blackmail". Journalists, doing their jobs. What. The. Fuck.

Journalists doing their jobs is quite a lot different to what the poster posted:

> They can make an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing. This could devour the rest of Obama's second term if it gets out of hand

This is not 'journalism'. This is blackmail.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#429

Post by agilebyte »

ordinary wrote: post #418
agilebyte wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same thing happened in Germany. The top level guys were tried at Nuremberg, but Nazi 'middle management' ruled West Germany for decades after the war. This, in turn, was an important motivation for the formation of the Rote Armee Fraktion. Western liberal democracy often forgets (or pretends to forget) that history is a thing, and that people have memoeries. There are many more instances where Western foreign pol…

Agreed.

For example seeing the people in Egypt now (VICE documentary), both camps, whether the secular camp/army or Muslim Brotherhood were blaming Obama for the current situation.

On a similar note, hats off to Russia, that, even though is supporting the Assad regime in Syria and beyond, never gets such a strong backlash or blowback as you say. Or maybe the fights in Caucasus are underreported.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#430

Post by adaml_623 »

jlgreco wrote: post #246
danielharan wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada's RCMP spied on Amnesty, the Anglican Church and the Raging Grannies. Our secret services gave their American counterparts information that led to torture of Canadian citizens and others. You think we're not part of this totalitarian movement?

I'm not Canadian, but do you think that Canada is participating in a particularly more extreme manner than non-engligh speaking countries? Language is not the binding factor here.

Why do you always have to look at evidence of systematic abuse of power and government corruption and say, "Well it's not as bad as China/Russia/x"?

How about you choose a line in the sand. And say that behaviour on this side is OK and on the other side it's not.

Post reply on HN