Live data from Hacker News

Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

theguardian.com

381–390 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#381

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…

You're misunderstanding @jacquesm. He's not saying people will care, he's saying that prima facie this move could only possibly make people care more. It'd be like giving a batter an extra swing. He'll probably miss, but there's no reason to give him the opportunity.

Spot on.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#382
Not really relevant, but I am greatly amused between the current relationship that we have with our security services and the situation that Terry Gilliam portrays in his excellent film: "Brazil".

After all, when the security state starts to be driven by the profit motive, were we really so naive as to expect anything less?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#383
post #222

I find this so hard to deal with. There's party of me screaming at the screen saying what is happening is so so so wrong more, but another part of me fears for my family. The fact I fear for my family feels like my head is above the parapet. The problem more than anything is that nobody around me seems to be that bothered about this. WTF do I do?

Why do you fear for your family?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#384
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Oh, I'm totally fine with people who are non-cooperative and non-citizens being denied entry. I'm a US Citizen, so I have an absolute right to re-enter the US without answering any questions (they do have a right to make sure I'm who I say I am, and that I'm not carrying any prohibited things in contravention of customs regulations, but that's it). I'm not sure how it works for transit. Also, if I were not a US citiz…

If you're entering the EU or a Schengen-signatory, even for a transit flight, you are required to pass through security (all passengers on any flight departing within the EU must have passed through EU-legislated security, to avoid the case where their incoming security has been lax). Some places include more (the UK requires security for /all/ passengers arrival on an international flight, regardless of the EU).

What one doesn't have to do is pass through border control or customs (unless one is transferring onto a domestic flight, then quite where you clear border control and customs varies from place to place — in the UK you clear the border at the port of entry and customs upon arrival at your final destination).

Also — just to note, I can't imagine anyone ever being actually arrested under the no-right-to-silence clause (and if they did, I expect it'd just get take to the ECHR and thrown out) except potentially for UK citizens/subjects/nationals/whatever-other-categories-there-are-that-I-always-forget (for whom entry cannot be refused).

If what you mean by not being sure how it works for transit is how it works in the US — you must posses a valid visa (probably a transit visa) or not need a visa (VWP, citizenship, etc.) for entry into the US, regardless of your further destination. Sadly, for many of us from Europe, many flights to South America require pre-approval from the US, because you cross US airspace, even though you never land.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#385
post #358
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the BBC, Independent, The Sun nor Daily Mail report on it; q.e.d., the "general public" doesn't care. Edit: The Sun does, however, have boobs on its homepage, the Daily Mail talks about celebrities and the BBC's international site talks about Syria, Gibraltar and Usain Bolt, with its England page concerned with assisted suicide, a rider who died after a horse accident, something about climate activists and th…

Front page of the BBC News right now.

Just been a spot on it on Radio 4, too.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#386

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.

The lesson is that some celebrities need to be recruited to act as ambassadors for the cause of privacy. If Tom Cruise had been held for nine hours the whole world would have known.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#387

I can't think of any legitimate government questioning someone and not allowing an attorney to be present. This is really scary.

I've got a big moral problem with a country interrogating a non-citizen and not allowing an attorney to be present or consulted.

More than a few years ago, I had key evidence about a felony and therefore had good reason to cooperate with the investigating officers. The initial questions were simple, factual, and related to the felony. But then the questions changed. At a certain point the questions became almost accusatory, at which point I started to ask WTF. It was then - and only then - that I was told I was a suspect and read my Miranda Rights. As knowledgeable as I was about my rights in my own country, all this still left dumbfounded. (It turned out the suspect in the felony had subsequently accused me and a colleague of a different felony. For months we were still suspects, had our own rights limited and were interrogated frequently. Thankfully, evidence came to light several months later that firmly cleared me and my colleague.)

I can not imagine being in a foreign country and going through a comparable situation. Beyond the right and wrong of David Miranda being interrogated, I've got a huge moral problem with any country interrogating a non-citizen without legal counsel.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#388

This is crime. The people who authorized this should be put in jail and the officers present should at least be fired. It should not be allowed that power is so easily abused, nor should written laws be so easily twisted without fear of consequence. I believe a civil disruption of the airport specifically targeting the security apparatus would be an appropriate response. To the cynics, yes, I am idealistic and, yes I…

> The people who authorized this should be put in jail By who ?

[deleted]

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are people living on that island that really don't deserve what you propose to do to them.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#390

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 hate the governments expanded terrorism powers too, but the "we should treat it as a crime" policy is either a naive statement or one where it's non-obvious how to go about it. The criminal justice system is used to punish criminals and through that deter crime. This has little effect on a suicide bomber (nor does the ability to detain people for 9 hours for that matter). At the same time, treating terrorism preven…

It's not aimed at the suicide bomber. It's aimed at the person convincing them to strap the vest on.

As any organisation, you don't survive very long by detonating your leadership class.

Post reply on HN