31–40 of 65 posts
The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would have been loath to sign off on reporting on as much as he did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. I'd draw the line: You can steal documents and publish them, if they reveal that the government has acted against the laws, or unconstitutionally. Basically if you're breaking the law to reveal that someone else has broken the law in order of magnitude worse way, then it's ok.
I'd agree. But in this case, the claim from GCHQ etc is that they have acted fully within the law. The guardian just loves anti-government stories, bashing anyone in power. Look at the "expenses scandal". The Guardian was all over it! Publishing pointless details of how an MP claimed £5 for a taxi to a restaurant. The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" cost more to the tax payer than the entire amount of expenses gi…
First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view.
Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret services.
Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?" asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal.
As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's about it in terms of any debate.
The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being reincarnated as an olive.
Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would h…
She's a Democrat, and otherwise a good person (I'd even say she's a remarkably good person) and she truly thinks Snowden is a traitor. In her mind the fact of behind-the-scenes surveillance projects are secrets are like nuclear launch codes or troop movements - e.g. legitimate "trade secrets" that the government needs, in this case to prevent another 9/11 from happening.
Of course she's horribly wrong, because like most people she's pretty bad at estimating risk. In this case, she's grossly over-estimating the risk from terrorism, and grossly under-estimating the risk we assume when our government gives itself surveillance super-powers over us (and in secret, no less!).
Anyway, this article might open up her eyes to the latter mistake, that she is grossly under-estimating the risk of government granting itself such power, not to mention the risk of a government exerting unprecedented influence over the press. This letter connects this to something she knows about, and feels strongly about: Watergate. So maybe she'll listen, and rethink her position, and for that reason, it's a great article that I'll be emailing to her momentarily.
I know this will be unpopular here, but personally, I would like to see the Guardian prosecuted for its reckless reporting of stolen information in the same way that phone hacking was dealt with. You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. If your government is doing something bad, then it should be dealt with legally, and via the established checks and balances. Newspap…
Either the leak is justified or it's not. Either way the press is not responsible.
If the leak is not justified then the blame lies with the leaker and the organisation that the info was leaked from. If private companies poorly secure customer info they often get fined, but there seems to be no comeback when the leak involves a government.
For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself. First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view. Ne…
Same people, different location.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. I'd draw the line: You can steal documents and publish them, if they reveal that the government has acted against the laws, or unconstitutionally. Basically if you're breaking the law to reveal that someone else has broken the law in order of magnitude worse way, then it's ok.
I'd agree. But in this case, the claim from GCHQ etc is that they have acted fully within the law. The guardian just loves anti-government stories, bashing anyone in power. Look at the "expenses scandal". The Guardian was all over it! Publishing pointless details of how an MP claimed £5 for a taxi to a restaurant. The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" cost more to the tax payer than the entire amount of expenses gi…
And you're going to just believe the claim? Come on. Actually, if all that was fully legal, that is IMHO more shocking.
> It would be good if people recognised how biased The Guardian is. It has an agenda
And yet you can't see GCHQ' self-serving agenda. I see that you "trust your government to do the right thing". The right thing for who, them or you? Why do you trust them and not other parties?
> The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" ... What the hell was the point of that
And you don't see the point of uncovering corruption in elected officials either? Perhaps you don't want your trust undermined? Nice selective use of logic there!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. I'd draw the line: You can steal documents and publish them, if they reveal that the government has acted against the laws, or unconstitutionally. Basically if you're breaking the law to reveal that someone else has broken the law in order of magnitude worse way, then it's ok.
I'd agree. But in this case, the claim from GCHQ etc is that they have acted fully within the law. The guardian just loves anti-government stories, bashing anyone in power. Look at the "expenses scandal". The Guardian was all over it! Publishing pointless details of how an MP claimed £5 for a taxi to a restaurant. The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" cost more to the tax payer than the entire amount of expenses gi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason we have a public interest defence - the Guardian believes that it is in the public interest that these documents and their implications are made public, discussed and changes made to our security services. I agree, but I see why others do not - but I ask you, how would we have the debate without the leaks and without the defence? If there is a way, please tell me.
I trust my government to do the right thing. I don't think we have an awful problem in the UK with corrupt greedy government abusing its power in the main.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. Erm, why ? What's your reasoning here beyond "but the laaaaaaw"? Do you even have any moral reasoning backing that?
So you'd be fine with someone stealing data the government holds on your, say your medical records, and publishing them on the front page would you? Maybe your last few tax returns. May as well publish those as well! How about state secrets on any weak parts of military defences? Yes I have moral reasoning. It's stolen information.
Well, you're free to believe that the right not to have one's information copied trumps any other concern. How are you feeling about your information being illegally copied by your own government, and freely shared with other security apparatuses?