Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation • Hacker News Board

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#171

Post by claudius » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:17 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #81

northwest wrote: post #21

The UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.

This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week. It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.

Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these ‘anti-terrorism acts’. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the table working on their application as the 51st state.

Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance until it’s only an annoying island off the coast of France rather than the first waypoint to Canada or (in this case) Brazil.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#172

Post by Nrsolis » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:17 PM UTC

rolux wrote: post #137

oscargrouch wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the UK authorities primarily demonstrate, to themselves, >that they still hold certain powers yes. the power to be subservient to the US twisted domestic politics.. (a US colony perhaps??)

I don't think the UK government is just a US puppet here. A lot of materials that Snowden released are directly related to UK interests -- part of which is to at least be perceived as an autonomous entity that can make autonomous decisions.

I think it would be foolish to underestimate how closely the interests of the Five Eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) track together. They were all hurt by the Guardian articles.

FWIW, this sort of behavior was expected from the UK and US authorities. They did the same to @ioerror and will likely do the same to any individual who is seen as challenging the interests of the US and UK intelligence organizations.

If you've de-cloaked yourself as an investigative apparatus that's dedicated to exposing the secrets of folks who expressly do NOT want their secrets exposed, you should expect no less.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#173

Post by alextingle » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

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…

My non-tech friends care quite a lot about this story too.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#174

Post by crgt » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

omonra wrote: post #145

GhotiFish wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People did not catch that joke. I think the issue was that you didn't go far enough. The internet has people who would say something like that and mean it. It wasn't absurd enough to be dismissed.

Thank you :) I really don't know anything beyond genocide I could muster (we don't have a word for holocaust of entire humanity, do we?)

The closest I can think of:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Xenocide

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#175

Post by rsynnott » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:20 PM UTC

andreyf wrote: post #85

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…

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…

> 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.

Well, it's not like the Guardian is really terribly popular amongst bigots, anyway... If he wrote for the Daily Mail I could see your point.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#176

Post by bparsons » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:22 PM UTC

throwit1979 wrote: post #82

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…

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.

I guarantee that they were not expecting the intensity of the reaction on this one.

A lot of stories, like the LavaBit shutdown for example, never elicited the strong backlash that it should have. It was however, well known in security and technology media circles.

Because it is a slow(er) Sunday news morning, the reaction on twitter to this story has been quite intense, and that is translating into a huge amount of print and broadcast news stories.

If this was intended to intimidate journalists, that would have been achieved through the inevitable reporting in specialty blogs and twitter feeds of those intensely interested in the subject.

This controversy on the other hand, is blowing up in their face, which will result in reporters making the next 72 hours hell for the various authorities involved on both sides of the pond.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#177

Post by paganel » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

jonlucc wrote: post #151

scarmig wrote: post #101

Disgusting. If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terr…

Soon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.

> It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished

I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called "Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of his time:

> There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they think are most hateful to the people upon those men they purpose to make odious. There they confute all opinions, and boldly they may do it, for as much as no liberty of reply or vindication in public is allowed to any, though never so much scandalized by them. And that men may not vindicate themselves by writing, their next interest is to be masters of the press, of which they are lately become by an ordinance for licensing books; which, being intended by the Parliament for a good and necessary end, namely the prohibition of all books dangerous or scandalous to the state, is become by means of the licensers, who are divines and intend their own interest, most serviceable to themselves in the stopping of honest men's writings, that nothing may come to the world's view but what they please - unless men will run the hazard of imprisonment, as I now do. So that in public they may speak what they will, write what they will, they may abuse whom they will, and nothing can be said against them. Well may they presume of making themselves masters of the people, having these foundations laid, and the people generally willing to believe they are good.

Now, anyone can replace "the divines" from the (very long) quote with the current establishment and the "heretics" and "honest men" with, well, the few honest men of our times.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#178

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:25 PM UTC

mythz wrote: post #78

straight_talk_2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really that naive as to expect change under the next democrat|republican administrations?

You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none. Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process has the most influence.

Wasn't Obama the 'hope' candidate?

I agree that hope is better than despair but hope seems to be a bit of a tarnished word after the last 4+ years.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#179

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:29 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #169

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…

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…

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.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#180

Post by Vivtek » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:29 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #92

acabal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about this today--whether or not this was a smart move for the government. On one hand, it's obvious that bullying the partner of a famous journalist is going to get negative media attention. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want . Maybe they know these laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that sort of media attention ensures that generations will know what happens when they st…

Making an example of a family member is crass to put it mildly, we have a basic principle in law that collective punishment is right out. So we don't punish you for your brothers crimes and so on. To punish a partner for some perceived slight when the principal agent is not charged with anything is something that I have a hard time imagining even today, in a former Soviet Union or affiliated country I could see somet…

Greenwald has been doing this for years. His prose is always over the top, but the man is really savvy (courtroom experience, maybe). I'm going to count myself very surprised indeed if this can provoke him into doing even the smallest detail differently than he intended.

If anything, he's chuckling that he managed to provoke them to this kind of outrageous action. Rubbing his hands with glee. (Shades of "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!")