Snowden journalist's partner gave Brit spooks passwords to seized files David Miranda, the partner of a journalist at the heart of the Edward Snowden NSA surveillance firestorm, handed over to British intelligence the crypto passwords for digital files they seized from him when he stopped over in the UK en route from a meeting with a US film-maker who was also involved with the Snowden disclosures. …
".... the solicitor was a 'duty' solicitor and, from experience, they usually advise to do exactly what the plod want you to do rather than advise you of your real rights." Having known several solicitors that have worked as duty solicitors I would have to say you are talking male bovine manure.
@spanners - "The fig leaf of "counter-terrorism" has been shown to be patently bogus, and not for the first time" = thumbs up
1 - Miranda was stopped using anti-terror legislation as the 'excuse' (otherwise they could not legally detain him for 9 hours)
2 - Whever interrogated him was not in th eleast interested in any terrorism-related questions, all they wanted to know about is related to Snowden leaks
Clearly they were using anti-terror legislation for what is clearly not a terror case. Not that anyone will ever be even reprimanded for this let alone punished
They can't get the leaker who exposed their dirty little secrets, so they start to intimidate those who talk to him, the friends of those who talk to him, leaders of suspect foreign states that may or may not transport him in an airplane, ... At least this guy looked sufficiently dark skinned to fall into the obvious suspect terrorist group (we don't do profiling, though!).
Nothing to see here, nobody is worried about Snowden, everything is above the law, we wanted to publish the details anyways, ...
".....so they start to intimidate those who talk to him, the friends of those who talk to him...." If Miranda was carrying stolen documents then he was party to a crime, full stop. Your socio-political blinkers preclude you from realizing that Snowden committed a crime by his own admission, and that in stealing info about GCHQ he is also in breach of the Official Secrets Act, meaning anyone stupid enough to be carrying docs stolen by Snowjob through the UK is just asking for it. Greenwald was silly to use his boyfriend as a courier, especially as Miranda is not a journalist and therefore does not have the legal protection that entails.
"......of suspect foreign states that may or may not transport him in an airplane....." I know it's hard for you sheeple to actually grasp legal concepts, but if Snowjob had been on the Bolivian jet without being declared on the passenger manifest, then it was equivalent to people smuggling and in breach of the Chicago Convention. Stopping the aircraft and requesting the passengers be checked was completely legal, which is why Morales complied. If it had been illegal then Morales would have milked the opportunity for all it was worth.
"....,At least this guy looked sufficiently dark skinned to fall into the obvious suspect terrorist group (we don't do profiling, though!)...." Why stop there, why don't you claim the UK coppers only stopped him because they're homophobic too? What a stupid statement. Miranda was stopped because it was obvious he was being used as a courier by Greenwald and Poitras, he could have been purple for all the difference his skin colour made. But don't let simple facts get in the way of your shrieking prejudices.
"Your socio-political blinkers preclude you from realizing that Snowden committed a crime by his own admission, and that in stealing info about GCHQ he is also in breach of the Official Secrets Act, meaning anyone stupid enough to be carrying docs stolen by Snowjob through the UK is just asking for it"
This isn't terrorism.
You are correct that it is grounds for an investigation under the OSA but that means a very different set of things than using the terrorism act.
Or do you think people suspected of speeding offences should be treated as terrorists as well?
"To be in breach of the Official Secrets Act, you have to have SIGNED the bloody thing first." Wrong! The Act is a law covering all the UK, just like those regarding murder, drunk-driving, or theft - you don't have to sign anything before you can be tried for a crime, you just have to be in breach of the respective law. What you sign is simply a chit that says you have been made aware that you are working with sensitive material covered by the Act, this is to stop you later trying to claim ignorance in court. Why is the sheeple know SFA about what they like to bleat and preach about so loudly?
"Greenwald was silly to use his boyfriend as a courier"
Erm,
Why the hell would he need to be used as a "Courier".
It has already been established that Greenwald et. al. have set up encryption regimes that would allow information to be sent over the internets, without risk of interception and imprisonment under the UK's "Tell us the encryption key or else" laws.
In addition, what use is it if they know what secret information someone might be carrying about the Snowden case
a) It's the Government's secret information, so they already know it
b) They know where Snowden is , so its not like they need this info to sniff him out.
They also have no problem breaking into Greenwalds place and stealing his stuff in Brazil anyway.
"Stopping the aircraft and requesting the passengers be checked was completely legal"
And not at all a severe and misjudged diplomatic insult along much the same intimidatory and "Legal" lines as this present case.
" only stopped him because they're homophobic too"
They stopped him because they had a watch order on him and decided to try to pump him for information about ongoing journalistic activities under laws specifically designed for terror cases that have very little built in protection because of the speed those cases can happen and the impact they can have.
If it turns out this use of the law was "Legal" then I guess that law will have to go, as it is clearly too widely defined and abusable.
But don't worry, the balance of probabilities is that someone will be given a golden parachute, made a scapegoat (only after they have copies any information etc. they want to) and it declared a "misjudgement" on that persons part. Then the government will issue a meaningless apology. Just so they can keep this law on the books without protest while continuing to abuse it.
"It's the Government's secret information, so they already know it"
The secret being the huge and systematic extent of their spying on US citizens and everyone else in the world. Snowden released it to "the enemy" - i.e. US citizens and everyone else in the world.
@Justicesays
a) It's the Government's secret information, so they already know it
Actually, they don't. Or more precisely, not everyone in government does. Lets consider a hypothetical situation where you are given a security clearance. That doesn't mean you instantly have access to all material classified at that level or below, it means you could be exposed to material at that level or below that is relevant to your job.
That is the entire point of compartmentalised (i.e. secret) information, you're only told on a need-to-know basis.
What has the spooks most worried is likely what the government doesn't know about what the spooks have been up to. It's been proven that the heads of the USA security services have been less than completely honest with their oversight committees and therefore with the people that authorise their expenditure and enable their function through legislation. It is not difficult to imagine that the same is true of the UK security services.
They're probably also worried about the risk to the Snoopers Charter currently being considered in the UK
That's the theory, and the US DOD and letter agencies did invent the concept of MAC.
But the evidence of the Manning and Snowden cases shows that MAC has by and large gone by the wayside, probably in the interests of speedy results, lower administrative overhead and use of contractors.
Otherwise how were they (especially Manning) able to download huge swathes of files which are patently not connected with their jobs.
Admittedly the Snowden case might be slightly different. He was a sysadmin and they are often treated as the almost invisible servants that make the rules happen, but in fact are exempt from the rules themselves in practical terms.
"....Why the hell would he need to be used as a "Courier". It has already been established that Greenwald et. al. have set up encryption regimes that would allow information to be sent over the internets, without risk of interception and imprisonment under the UK's "Tell us the encryption key or else" laws....." Greenwald has already admitted that Miranda was carrying docs related to the Snowden affair, he was obviously carrying them between Greenwald and Poitras because they did not trust their encrypted service to be NSA-proof. Once those docs were encrypted on electronic devices they were subject to the UK laws on having to provide the keys when requested as soon as they hit UK territory. Try a little background research, it helps. The amusing bit is Greenwald, supposedly an "international journalist", didn't know it.
"....a) It's the Government's secret information, so they already know it...." The crime in this case would be being in breach of the Official Secrets Act, nothing at all to do with HMG knowing the info. Duh!
".....And not at all a severe and misjudged diplomatic insult...." And if Snowjob had been on the plane it would have been an even worse diplomatic insult, as well as in breach of international law. Grow up.
"....They stopped him because they had a watch order on him and decided to try to pump him for information about ongoing journalistic activities under laws specifically designed for terror cases...." The information being leaked by Manning and Snowden is interfering in anti-terror investigations, therefore it is both correct and legal, with no apology needed. Greenwald an co need to realize they have joined the big boys game and it is not fought to the rules of the uni debating club.
"The crime in this case would be being in breach of the Official Secrets Act"
Odd that they didn't then arrest him under that act , give they had all these unencrypted secret government files he was couriering. Hell, they could have just arrested him under that straight away, instead of misusing Terror legislation.
Unfortunate that arresting people requires things like rights, and lawyers, and the possibility of involving judges or other people outside of the heavies they actually set to pressure him.
The only likely thing he was carrying would be raw or early footage of whatever the film maker Poitras has put together for her shortly to be released documentary on worldwide spying and so on.
The kind of film you would be dismissing as "tin foil hattery" a few months back no doubt.
Amazing how you can continue to have so much trust in your government as they keep showing that last years "tin foil hat" conspiracy theories fall way short of this years reality,
"And if Snowjob had been on the plane it would have been an even worse diplomatic insult, as well as in breach of international law. Grow up."
But he wasn't. Turns out if you act like heavy handed fascists , smug in your conviction you are in the right and it turns out you are not, you look like a bunch of heavy handed fascists that don't give a shit about diplomatic relations.
In this case, they "broke the rules" of diplomatic behaviour without any justification either prior or post the act, and they deserve to be shat upon thereby, so suck it up.
Treating those that interfere with the diplomatic processes (and those that support them doing so) with contempt is the least that can be expected.
Its this kind of shit that means the US has to have all these terrorist laws and so on.
"The information being leaked by Manning and Snowden is interfering in anti-terror investigations"
You mean, the NSA is spying on terrorists? Woah, say it isn't so.
You know what, I'm not big on the current trend of expanding the definition of terrorist to cover anything the government doesn't like. Like Iceland, or Journalists
Matt, while I (and most likely those El Reg staffers concerned with eyeball counts) respect your efforts to prevent the comment sections here from being mere echo chambers, your advice to “grow up” lacks any gravitas whatsoever due to your persistence in referring to people with epithets like Snowjob, A$$hat, Obambi, &c. If you would lead, lead by example.
I'd say the point was to kill journalism, but it's already a bit late. The only question is whether or not they have to kill the journalists. (Yes, I'm still and increasingly convinced they killed Michael Hastings.)
We are heading for a future where regular people like you and I have no privacy and are completely enslaved by the corporations and governments, whereas the richest and most powerful people have complete privacy and all power. It isn't just the negative personal information, though those threats are easy to understand. Even the most positive information about your tastes, interests, and personal strengths can be used to control and manipulate you and effectively remove your freedom.
It's possible that the flow of information will become uncontrollable and even the rich and powerful people will be stripped of the secrecy. However, even in that case, I'm sure they will continue to abuse our personal information and us. Sometimes the future just looks too bleak and I'm glad of my age...
Really? I was almost convinced that the whole thing was arranged by an evil genius mastermind at the gruniad (can't you picture Alan Rusbridger with a white cat?)
I stopped reading the paper when Neue Labour came to power but I have started again on the back of this investigation.
Also in the Guardian - the government have been putting the screws on the paper to hand material over. Not by getting court injunctions that can be contested and are in the public eye, but by directly threatening the paper:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters
From the coalition agreement:
'We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.'
and
CIVIL LIBERTIES
'We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.'
So why is the government so worried when Little Billy Hague told us only a few weeks ago that the security services always acted within the law?
It seems that PJ had tried to step back from Groklaw before, it takes a massive amount of effort and commitment to provide such a service and it must have been taking a lot out of her. She had passed day-to-day stuff over to someone else, but then took it up again when he was unable to do it all in a timely fashion.
While PJ has stated that this whole saga has made her feel unable to continue for one reason, it isn't the only reason.
Pamela Jones, a voice of relative sanity on US legal issues in IT, shut down the Groklaw blog this morning.
Really ? I have just been to http://groklaw.net/, it is still there.
What she does say is something very different:
The owner of Lavabit tells us that he's stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we'd stop too.
There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum.
What to do?
from Ms. Jones's last post:
"So this is the last Groklaw article. I won't turn on comments. Thank you for all you've done. I will never forget you and our work together. I hope you'll remember me too. I'm sorry I can't overcome these feelings, but I yam what I yam, and I tried, but I can't."
:(
Yes, it is rather puzzling. Normally Ms Jones manages to look at facts, but now she seems to have given in to paranoia, claiming that all her emails are being read. I have to ask why she thinks she would be of interest to the authorities in any way at all? What does she want to claim, that Obambi is a major supporter of SCO? Maybe she had a Lavabit account, maybe she's upset at what happened to Lavabit, or maybe she's just tired of blogging and looking for a way out. Maybe someone will pick up her toys and put them back in her pram for her so she can return to blogging, as she was a good source of (IBM) info during the SCO affair and it would be a shame for her to pack it all in for no reason now.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"Can I point you in the direction of Al-Jazeera... it's just a proper news outlet and is highly regarded around the world."
Oh, like the BBC 50 years ago, then?
Nowadays, the BBC (like The Times) sounds exactly like Pravda and Izvestia - a platform for the great, the good, the officially blessed, and of course the government. Remember the old Russian joke? "There's no news in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia".
>Nowadays, the BBC (like The Times) sounds exactly like Pravda and Izvestia - a platform for the great, the good, the officially blessed, and of course the government.
The BBC became Neo Labour's very own Pravda immediately after calling the Hutton whitewash a whitewash. I can still vividly remember the last desperate squeals via the bulletins as the shit (tony b liar) hit the fan: It was as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly replaced by a single conceited propaganda voiceover telling us how sad we all feel about some poor child in India with leukaemia. I feared something terrible had happened.
Heading to a future of perpetual servalance & corporate servatude, sorry but we are there. All achieved by legislation brought in, supported by manuipulating the fear and orchestrating excessive public knee jerk reaction to the actions of a few radical groups.
>Read the article below, we don't have any kind of free press or government accountability any more.
We have access to the WORLD WIDE Web... for now... that's free of governmental interference. Which is why they're so desperately clamouring to get censorship laws and mechanisms in place.
Oh, except that the censorship is ONLY to stop us harming ourselves with naughty pictures. Honest. ...and will, of course be subject to the strongest possible standards of independent oversight. So that's OK then. Just like the anti-terrorism laws are only used to protect us from TERRORISTS.
Thank God our dear government is protecting us so well.
"We are heading for a future where regular people like you and I have no privacy and are completely enslaved by the corporations and governments, whereas the richest and most powerful people have complete privacy and all power. It isn't just the negative personal information, though those threats are easy to understand. Even the most positive information about your tastes, interests, and personal strengths can be used to control and manipulate you and effectively remove your freedom."
I Agree, you're right!
But, "we" are to blame for relying too much on the net for everything in our lives. We can't stop our peers from giving away any information for a free game of tetris (or its ilk). Self inflicted? Yes and of consequence is "they" drag us all into the pit of hell.
For situations such as this, an application is needed to lock (and possibly encrypt) the data on a hard drive and protect it with two passwords. Password 1 simply unlocks the drive. Password 2 wipes the drive clean securely. If detained and forced to give "the" password, then one obviously gives Password 2.
Does such an application exist? If so, where do I get it? If not, why not?
Because they would make a copy first and if it did wipe it they come back and ask you again for the actual password less politely.
Remember these aren't those nice American secret service with a constitution and a supreme court - these are the British gentlemen with 100years of experience torturing information out of IRA suspects before shooting them in the back of the head in self defence.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
