Of coure it isn't
"... but it's not something that we requested ..."
Uncle Sam does not need to make requests. A slightly raised eybrow is all it takes for the British flunkies to run around in circles anticipating every wish.
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. …
Is it me or are we now just the fucking Israel of Europe?
The EU should kick us out or suspend our 'membership' so we can fully become the fifty-nth State of the Union.
Then hopefully everyone who wants it will be given cheap emigration to mainland Europe cos David C-for-you-know-what keeps me _just_ poor enough to not quite afford to leave this shithole.
".....keeps me _just_ poor enough to not quite afford to leave this shithole." Shall we examine that idea, just to test it's validity? For starters, if you had skills that were in demand then they would be transferable to another country, presumably one of the socialist European "worker paradises" you seem to insist are just across the Channel. Indeed, if you had real skills you would earn more he in the UK. And then let's look at those "worker paradises" you seem to blindly believe are just out of reach, all happily complicit with NATO and locked into the same intelligence sharing schemes, in many cases heavily reliant on the NSA and GCHQ for electronic intercept info (apart from France, which has Frenchelon, but still shares "anti-terror" info under European deals). And, apart from Germany, they seem to be universally in the crapper economically, in fact much worse than the UK, which wisely didn't fall for the socialist hype and join the Euro. So, to summarize, you seem to have limited skills and the facts are your alternative countries of choice are actually not as good as where you are now, so the real matter keeping you in the UK is the reality that you don't want to admit, namely that you would be worse off anywhere else. LOL!
"For starters, if you had skills that were in demand then they would be transferable to another country, presumably one of the socialist European "worker paradises" you seem to insist are just across the Channel."
You're wasting your time Matt; the belief is typical of many people here that Miranda should have been waved through, permitted to act as a courier carrying the secrets of a NATO ally, and no question. These people don't have a fucking clue, except the mistaken belief that all information is free and that intelligence and security can be compromised simply because they believe this to be so.
There is no longer the sort of unifying belief inherited by western people, after the war; moving from holding together against the Axis powers to holding together against Leninist-Marxism. There is now no belief at all. Nothing activates people to see that there might be some common good, a common enemy, common cause and all of that, although there are large numbers of mad bastards who would like to replicate the WTC attack and the attacks in London, on US embassies in Africa, on USS Cole and so on.
No, these people are lotus eaters, complacent and slack. They will roll over and die willingly.
Umm, just slightly of the mark, with your comments;
1. Although an ally the US is no friend of any nation or state when the wishes of the US government clash with the wishes of a so called friend or ally. No doubt you still beleive the BS, that we in the UK anjoy a "special relationshsip" with the US.
2. Most people, who you dreide as being unaware of the implications of Wikileaks and\or Snowden as not having 2a fucking clue" are infact well informed and educated and have often servered within the very infrstrastructure that is being used illegally, without oversight and ofetn with the tacit approval of the PM/President. As one such person, I can understand the need to use intelligence to prevent bad things from happening. What I and others object to is the inference that we are all potential terrorists.
3. There is a growing beleif, again contrary to your opinion in the Western world that our socalled liberal democratic governments shoudl be just that. And accountable to the very people who they claim to represent.
4. As can already be seen, our Governments are using poorly drafted, barely debated legislation to restrict, circumvent civil liberties. While the focus today maybe on people like Assange, Manning and Snowden, tomorrow it might you or I simply for challenging the government of the day. You can't comapre event from 60 years ago to what is happening today and to do so is diengenius.
5. The WTC attack in 93, the USS Cole, 9/11, 7,7, etc all were carried out sucessfully despite widespread surveillence. Our governments are using their chosen bogeymen; Terrorist, Muslims, Peados's to scare us into submission, so if you think that the worls you want to live in to justify your myopic view, then no doubt you'll continue to beleive everythin you are told and agree with Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who only this morning suggested that the authroties can be trusted. I submit that history will show that you are backing the wrong side of this arguement (though I respect you for at least having an opinion).
6. I hate lotus flowers.
Perhaps a corollary to what you say here is that unfortunately today there are too few still living who remember the shared security/secrecy beliefs of the Allies of the Second World War. That was all "so yesterday" within today's severely truncated attention spans.
Now, all information of whatever nature is naturally assumed in some quarters to be always in the Public Domain, not too far off from downloading a flic from YouTube. "What's yours is mine." Sniff, sniff. That seems to be the acquired role of the Left wing Guardian and their ilk.
There are too few people who've accepted the fact that today we're in a World War against these butchering trans-border Muslim terrorists, and that each of our throats is subject to being slit if we don't adhere to sharia law. No need to ask them, they're reminding all of us, all the time.
Who appointed the Guardian and the New York Times and the Washington Post as arbiters saying that there are no National secrets anymore? Who anointed Assange and Snowden as arbiters of "setting the record strait"....
"Is it me or are we now just the fucking Israel of Europe?"
I thought Israel was the Israel of Europe?
In seriousness, it's pretty bad here, but we have a very long way to go before reaching Israel's standards of human rights. It makes light of their situation to compare it with ours, in the same way as would comparing our standard of living with Somalia's.
OK, I had lodgings and a loving partner to go to, but I left those shores with a grand in my pocket and survived. 13 weeks without work, but then took what I could before I'd developed my language skills enough to get back into the IT game.
I picked up a hitchhiker the other week - they managed to survive travelling from Central Europe to Scandinavia solely by the goodwill of folk in their cars and lorries, and getting a doss by sofa-surfing, and getting food by scrounging (the 'free-' mnemonic for that escapes me at present). Communications for all of the above done by smartphone and word-of-mouth. Inspiring stuff for those of us who see 'the daily grind' as the only way to do it and perhaps not a lifestyle that would sit comfortably with me and mine.
If you've got no dependents, you can do it. Might mean a change in attitudes and lifestyle - and if I was feeling that oppressed with no other commitments, I might just take out that bit of cardboard and marker pen...
You do realize that getting the raw data would also be in Britain's best interest?
So let me get this straight....
Glenn doesn't travel but sends his boyfriend as a 'courier' for something that could have been sent via the internet? (Note that they said that the files were 'heavily encrypted' )
Said boyfriend is stopped. I would imagine the questioning to go along the lines of...
Q:"Is this laptop and USB drives yours?"
A: "No, they are for my boyfriend who's a reporter for the Guardian."
Q: "Why are they in your posession"
A: "My boyfriend asked me to fly to Berlin to pick up this material to bring it to him."
Q: "Why didn't he do this on his own? "
A: "He was afraid he would get arrested."
"OK we need to see what's on these laptops which would cause him to be afraid of getting arrested."
"These files seem to be encrypted. Do you know the password? If you do and you don't tell us, we will put you into jail..."
Something like that.
Sorry, but Glenn did send his boyfriend because he knew the contents and he knew that the governments would want to get their hands on it.
Glenn is a US Citizen. His boyfriend is not. He's Brazilian.
Had Glenn gone and gotten arrested. The US Government would probably be slow to get on it and help him out. (Something about his paperwork getting lost in the system and the guy who's supposed to handle it is on break ... or holiday? )
So yeah, I can imagine why Glenn sent his boy Friday. But seriously, why not just use a drop box? Or a torrent stream of the encrypted file?
I believe they're married, so he should really be upgraded to Husband, but the point stands.
Non-Tech journos aren't employed for their IT skills. When you factor in the fact that the story is about wholesale monitoring of internet traffic that may well discourage the use of the Internet to transfer the files. He couldn't take the files himself because he'd definitely be a target for law enforcement, but a little critical thinking would suggest that his husband would be as well. We don't know how the files were encrypted, but it's not unreasonable to think that they believe the law enforcement agencies would be able to break them, but that joe public who found a lost USB stick wouldn't be able to.
Glenn doesn't travel but sends his boyfriend as a 'courier' for something that could have been sent via the internet? (Note that they said that the files were 'heavily encrypted' )
With the likes of Mr Snowden advising on how to transfer data without interception by precisely these sorts of agencies, one imagines that sensible precautions were taken against precisely this sort of action. Certainly it wouldn't have taken a genius to agree a substantial one-time pad before this whole thing went public.
If so, transmission over the Internet would certainly appear to be relatively safe. But knowing that such (encrypted) transmissions would almost certainly be intercepted, one's entitled to ask: why *give away* half the puzzle, especially when it's quite easy not only to frustrate access to the ciphertext but also to have a very good idea when it has been gained?
Furthermore, I'd be surprised if any meaningful data was not in some plausibly deniable container (both cryptographically, and physically) to circumvent RIPA key disclosure as was demanded in this case.
Overall, if Plod have managed to obtain anything useful from this exercise, it speaks more of Mr Snowden's incompetence than their brilliance.
"Uncle Sam does not need to make requests. A slightly raised eybrow is all it takes for the British flunkies to run around in circles anticipating every wish."
Something's amiss with that snark.....are you saying that Britannia no longer "....rules the waves and waives the Rules?"
Clearly our securocrats and their spookmasters are a tad rattled by the light being shone on their dubious dealings.
The fig leaf of "counter-terrorism" has been shown to be patently bogus, and not for the first time. The sheer unaldulterated clumsiness and the peurile attempts at intimidation will only give succour to those who are intent on firing rockets up the NSA and GCHQ's corrupt and lazy fundaments. Send in the auditors and see how they justify their expensive charade. It'll be fun watching the cheerleaders of the War on Whistleblowers trying to prove a negative.
"Clearly our securocrats and their spookmasters are a tad rattled by the light being shone on their dubious dealings....." Yes, because stopping people under Section 7 just NEVER happens, right? Except about 70,000 times a year, that is. Face it, once again the Guardian crew didn't stop to think about what powers the authorities have and stupidly sent their courier via the UK.
".....The fig leaf of "counter-terrorism" has been shown to be patently bogus....." Except is was shown in court - and finally admitted by Manning himself with his desperate and groveling apology - these leaks DO impact on anti-terror investigations because they are avidly followed by the likes of Al Quaeda. So it would seem what is "bogus" is your ability to follow well-reported events.
"..... The sheer unaldulterated clumsiness and the peurile attempts at intimidation ...." LOL, sorry to burst your alternate reality bubble but Miranda had a solicitor present throughout the interview and - had there been any "intimidation" or any form of illegal attempt to blackmail or lie about the legal position - that solicitor would have told Miranda exactly what could and couldn't be done. And then we have Greenwald admitting that he stupidly used his boyfriend to courier encrypted documents relating to Snowden, so it seems it was the Guardian and co that were clumsy in their attempts to get round electronic interception of their communications. In truth, Miranda was lucky not to be arrested, but I suspect that was because the British authorities ran out of time analyzing the haul in order to find something charge him with.
What has Greenwald and Poitras bricking themselves is the fear that the docs might contain evidence that either of them communicated with Snowjob before he stole the NSA secrets. Just like with Manning and A$$nut, if the US can show that they encouraged, assisted or even directed Snowjob's actions then they are culpable under the Espionage Act.
"Except is was shown in court - and finally admitted by Manning himself with his desperate and groveling apology - these leaks DO impact on anti-terror investigations"
er... what happened in Manning's court was secret, were you present? If there was 1 shred of evidence of concrete harm done by Manning's leak, you could bet your arse that the CIA & Co would have made sure teh public knew about it. So most likely, no there was NOT any concrete evidence of harm.
And if you believe a word Manning said in his "apology", you're being incredibly naive. Manning was tortured so by definition nothing he says can be taken at face value.
"sorry to burst your alternate reality bubble but Miranda had a solicitor present throughout the interview and - had there been any "intimidation" ......"
Just the fact that he was arrested and held for 9 hours is intimidating enough. Doesn't matter he had a lawyer present, there didn't need to be "any form of illegal attempt to blackmail or lie about the legal position ", because the legal position was exactly what they were threatening and intimidating him with. Please note that this guy has not broken any laws, has not encouraged any laws to be broken, has not even met with a criminal suspect. There was absolutely zero suspicion that this man had done anything illegal or has any intention to do anything illegal yet he was held and interrogated for 9 hours. That's Intimidation with a capital "I"
This post has been deleted by its author
"LMAO! Your whole post just came across as "I want to Baaaaaaah-lieve!""
And your posts are just rants about how the state is always right and these people are obviously criminals for not bowing down to the supreme ruler.
You really need to use the troll icon more.
"Except is was shown in court - and finally admitted by Manning himself with his desperate and groveling apology - these leaks DO impact on anti-terror investigations because they are avidly followed by the likes of Al Quaeda. So it would seem what is "bogus" is your ability to follow well-reported events."
Dude, this is about Snowdon, not Manning. Manning s admission to terrorism doesn't reflect on Snowdon in the manner you imply here.
"LOL, sorry to burst your alternate reality bubble but Miranda had a solicitor present throughout the interview"
Says who? It was an interview under S7 TACT doesn't give the right to legal representation and they are normally always done without a lawyer for the suspect present. The idea behind the power is to allow police to quickly interview suspects in a fast moving terrorist related investigation without having to wait for legal advisors to turn up.
In this instance it appears he was offered a lawyer but refused.
So however you slice it, he didn't have a solicitor present.
The most important thing you seem to be mixing up is the difference between terrorist related legislation an espionage related laws. An S7 TACT interview for an OSA offence is a gross misuse of police powers.
LOL, sorry to burst your alternate reality bubble but Miranda had a solicitor present throughout the interview
"Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.
Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence."
Quotes from the grauniad article on this matter. He was offered an interpreter, which he accepted, but he never got one. "He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities."
"......Quotes from the grauniad article on this matter. He was offered an interpreter, which he accepted, but he never got one. "He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities."....." Strange, the Beeb say he did have a solicitor. Given the Guardian's lack of accuracy on so many other areas I'm prone to going with the Beeb on this one, especially given that the Guardian has an obvious monetary motive for hyping the "terribleness" of Miranda's temporary detention.
" Who rattled your cage Matt?....." Well, you didn't say only people you deem "suitable" (ie, other sheeple, no doubt), could answer your querie. Just another example of the "no-one but sheeple may participate" phenomenon.
".....I can only assume you believe my comment was about you...." Get over yourself, I was just trying to be helpful. I would never assume that a mindless drone like yourself could only be annoyed by just moi, there are billions of other people outside the flock whose independence of thought must annoy you.
Are you getting tetchy because one of you other "heroes", Manning, is due to get his comeuppance today?
Matt, I have no objections whatsoever to you holding whatever political stance you like and voicing that opinion on here. If I have an objection, it is simply the way in which you go about it. You ascribe words and motives to people without knowing the first thing about them.
If you stayed away from the ad hominem attacks and stuck to the points you are trying to make it would make reading your posts a little less grating. Make of that what you will.
Here, have a pint and chill out a bit.
please fuck off
You said please, which is a good start. Now why don't you go and play with a circle of sock puppets. Soon, in a manner analogous to the way teenagers learn about sex by masturbation, you will learn to interact with your peers in a social and grown up manner.
"Do you think it's OK that people are stopped 70,00 times a year under Section 7? Perhaps the Grauniad was hoping for an incident like this, to highlight that horrifying abuse of power."
...and you know these were abuses of power because? In case it has escaped your notice there have been a number of significant incidents in this country lately, and a number of plots have been halted by dint of intelligence work. I am completely unsurprised that so many arrests have been made, not least because the number of active plotters has been estimated to be several thousand; these people are not plotting to throw eggs at senior British politicians, but to kill the like of you and I. The police only need to arrest a few thousand people a few times and there are a large number of arrests.
Serious? Do you really think even a fraction of those 70,000 stopped were terrorists or had knowledge of terrorist activities. No, the authorities were just fishing. And what exactly is knowledge of terrorist activities, anyway? I vividly recall several bombings during the 80's, does that make me suspect?
The sheer number of people stopped "just in case" makes it self evidently an abuse of power. You may be happy to like in a police state, but I'm not.
Your trolling isn't quite up to the level of Matt (assuming you are different people) so you should work on it a little bit.
"...and you know these were abuses of power because? In case it has escaped your notice there have been a number of significant incidents in this country lately"
Really? How many terrorist attacks?
" and a number of plots have been halted by dint of intelligence work."
How many? How do you know this? How have you verified the source of your information as being better than the one saying the majority of the S7 stops are abuses?
Importantly, how many attacks have been disrupted by an S7 investigation rather than the magic of the rock in my yard?
" I am completely unsurprised that so many arrests have been made,"
Eh? How many arrests have been made?
As a hint, as of December 2012 there had been a total of 246 arrests for terrorist related offences in the UK, and the majority were Irish related issues.
Of those arrests, only 43 led to a terrorism related charge.
Seventy thousand stops under schedule seven, using in excess of 140,000 police hours ( assuming one hour interview, two officers and no further resources) has led to no improvement in the security of UK citizens.
I'd rather the money was spent on hospitals.
" not least because the number of active plotters has been estimated to be several thousand;"
Made up number. Also, most will be immune to a schedule seven stop as they are already here.
"These people are not plotting to throw eggs at senior British politicians, but to kill the like of you and I. "
Oh no. Evil terrorists. Everyone needs to be scared. Terrorist organisations love people like you. They don't need to do anything but you are still spreading fear on their behalf.
"The police only need to arrest a few thousand people a few times and there are a large number of arrests."
Oh, right. That makes it ok then. Is the same seven hundred people stopped a hundred times each. No waste of resources there......
Your post was full of hilarious hyperbole, but I couldn't help pointing out the particular stupidity of the following statement:
".....Seventy thousand stops under schedule seven, using in excess of 140,000 police hours ( assuming one hour interview, two officers and no further resources) has led to no improvement in the security of UK citizens....." Consider the example of car insurance - you don't know when you will need it because you don't know when you will have an accident. By your stupid example, we should not take insurance unless we know we are going to be in an accident and pay only for that immediate period, because otherwise the insurance payments are a waste of time and money. Obviously, since you usually don't know when you are going to have an accident, you pay all the time for the day you may have an accident. Similarly, you cannot account for police time just by looking at the small amount of time they spend actually charging people as the majority of their work is looking for criminals and preventing crime. It would be like saying "hey, my bank doesn't need security cameras or guards because the majority of the time there are no bank robbers around" - great until the bank robbers realize you have left yourself bank unprotected. And that is part of the value of what the NSA and GCHQ do - they don't just detect terrorist communications, they also make it harder for terrorists to communicate by discouraging them to do so. At least that's true when they're unsure how they are being watched, but when traitors like Manning and Snowden tell them all the details then that does help terrorists.
".... 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"
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.
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:
From the coalition agreement:
'We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.'
'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.
"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."
And who funded the IRA? Oh the Yanks....then when someone blows the yanks up they decide to blow whole countries up that had bugger all to do with it.
This post has been deleted by its author
They are not "forced" to give up the password. You choose to go to jail which would be the appropriate thing to do if you are really serious about your personal ethics. There have been many people over the years who have chosen jail or even death rather than breaking a confidence or their personal ethics.
Calling it "forced" insults the memory of some of the most ethical people ever. True martyrdom is to be celebrated and emulated if you're brave enough. Does anyone remember Gandhi?
Would/could I do it? Probably not, but I would not say I was forced, I would say I chose to do it rather than accept whatever the punishment is. Ultimately most people have things they would not do even on the pain of death. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.
>UK police constables are particular fans of this "choose to obey me or I'll punish you" dichotomy. "Ihre Ausweise" can't be far off now.
I wouldn't say "particular fans"... have you seen how the yanks do it? Their tried and trusted "worship me or I'll kick you to the ground then shoot you twice in the back of the head" dichotomy. All executed with total impunity as long as the magical "he was reaching for his belt" incantation is uttered.
No doubt we'll be aping that too in a few years. "Awesome."
Nah. It's far more fun winding up authoritarians - and then dealing with their attempts at spam-reporting me to take my terrible views off public display.
Handy hint, btw. Reporting a Reg hack's comment bounces it up to me, 90% of the time. You might want to remember that next time you get trigger-happy with the "report" button.
Those whose knowledge of history is superficial might fall into the trap of thinking that you can't have fascism without battalions of soldiers goose-stepping down the streets, men in big pointy hats doing weird salutes, and shouty dictators always making loud speeches.
That would be wrong. Fascism is a situation in which the state (usually in subtle alliance with big corporations) sets itself up as the be-all and end-all, whereas ordinary citizens are merely workers or cannon-fodder.
Huey ‘The Kingfish’ Long (governor of Louisiana 1928-1935), was not far off the mark when he said, "Of course we will have fascism in America but we will call it democracy!"
"They are not "forced" to give up the password"
So what do you think forced means?
If I pull your fingernails out one by one you can still choose to refuse to answer. There is always a choice to refuse (and be killed, raped, maimed, whatever),
The reality is the level of force is different but this only really hinges on your own tolerances.
"Do this or go to jail" is forcing someone to make the choice which is really what is meant by forced.
If you build the secure device so the password just unlocks the key from hardware that would be very difficult to copy without damage, then having the self-destruct password destroy the key would be make the real password useless. Even if someone copied the encrypted contents, it would still be a matter of reversing the encryption rather than asking again for the real password.
There are already encryption algorithms that allow for multiple containers within the file, each of which basically looks like junk data until you provide the correct password.
One password gets you your h4rdc0re, the other one unlocks a photoshopped image of Longcat flying over the GCHQ doughnut.
For the reasons given above, that's not as useful as it first sounds. But some applications, notably TrueCrypt, have the ability to keep two collections of files on the same drive and reveal them with different passwords. Because the whole thing is first filled with random data it's (theoretically) impossible to prove the second collection of files exists.
Better to do it in hardware, if the actual drive does not detect that it's plugged into the "safe" computer, it passes as much current as it can draw through the thermite package built into its case.
I'm imagining a 3.5" case, where there aren't actually any platters, just an SD card for storage; and the rest is security logic, thermite, and whatever is necessary for igniting the thermite.
What, like the IronKeys?
Secure thumb drives, with gluefilled cases, and a small bit to physically destroy the key if the password is put in incorrectly, or if it's put into an internet connected pc, and the remote process has been set off?
very tempted to get myself one...
quote: "What, like the IronKeys?
Secure thumb drives, with gluefilled cases, and a small bit to physically destroy the key if the password is put in incorrectly, or if it's put into an internet connected pc, and the remote process has been set off?
very tempted to get myself one..."
Err... that company is based in the US. What makes you think that haven't been "requested" to put in a backdoor already, a perfectly legal request by the legal and authorised government of the country, in a legal manner?
Wouldn't touch one with yours, as the saying goes :)
Then it seems that we need to change the laws and procedures. I guess that's where our MPs come in.
If the Americans had a heads up, then surely the Home Secretary did too. So the buck stops with him on this. The security services can only be as good or as bad as the politicians driving them.
The security services can only be as good or as bad as the politicians driving them. … Richard Boyce Posted Tuesday 20th August 2013 02:31 GMT
Hmmm :-) Now there is a novelty which some would posit is apolitically incorrect and a sweet perverse subversion, and corrupt ragged cart before a dead horse notion, RB, which affords though, quite adequate enough cover for both covert and clandestine agents encountering and entangled in weighty [but not necessarily heavy] intelligence matters.
Intelligence beings don't entertain the whim and fancy of pontificating and posturing politicians, and if the security services are so led and influenced, are they in dire straits need of a whole new leadership platform which be most easily delivered immediately with a new secrets agency.
There was a time whenever one may have expected the recently stood up Office of Cyber Security to offer such function, but it appears to be just another laundry for washing money/securing funds for the boys and their toys and extravagant expenses given the evident failure and obvious lack of success in securing command and control of the field.
I wonder if Mark Carney is the UKGBNI head man to approach with regard to QE provision of enabling liquidity/sublime slush funding to a smarter intelligent service servering agencies new secrets for remote command and virtual control of ….. well, Command and Control of Creative CyberSpaces with Communicating Computers and Global Operating Devices would certainly allow one to crash and burn the ponzi fiat currency system in a series of enlightening flash attacks/lightning phantom raids, and that would correct and destroy all present and corrupt systems of administration in every nation state/tin pot dictatorship/wonga wonga bunga bunga land ….. for there is no point in spilling the beans to what is going on in back rooms and bunkers and novel field operations to puppets and muppets whenever it is ringleaders and puppet masters needing the keys and access codes to future systems admin.
:-) cc Mark.Carney@thebankofengland.co.fcuk
Welcome to the Great IntelAIgents Game ℅ MuI7 GCHQ ICEnterprises ….. for All of urMutual Intelligence Needs and Feeds/SMARTR Magic Garden Seeds.
>Then it seems that we need to change the laws and procedures. I guess that's where our MPs come in.
>If the Americans had a heads up, then surely the Home Secretary did too. So the buck stops with him on this. The security services can only be as good or as bad as the politicians driving them.
Yes but change them to what? ...and how?
I can't imagine you're suggesting the Popular People's Neo Labour Front would be any better. After all, THEY are the fuckers who introduced all this Orwellian shit... so you mean some sort of more grand change? Can't see that ending well. You remember what they did to Guido Fawkes. They MAKE SURE you remember what THEY DID to Guido Fawkes.
Then it seems that we need to change the laws and procedures. I guess that's where our MPs come in.
I have written to my MP (who happens to be Dave) demanding that the law be changed and asking him to pass on my requests to both the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary to resign over the disgraceful actions of their departments in abusing the existing laws.
I'm not holding my breath but if others feel the same then a few letters may help them understand the level of disapproval of actions which belong in a tin-pot police state.
"...a few letters may help them understand the level of disapproval of actions which belong in a tin-pot police state".
A fine sentiment (which I entirely share). But what makes you think they give a flying fuck about public disapproval? The only thing the public can do to express its disapproval is to vote Labour back in. Whoops, hello fire.
But what makes you think they give a flying fuck about public disapproval?
What they do care about is the risk that their supporters will turn to 3rd parties (LibDems or UKIP). The last thing they want is to have to share power in a coalition. That is about the only weapon we (the people) have against them. We saw that with the U-turns on immigration to appease UKIP sympathisers.
Now we need to convince the politicians (and their friends in the newspapers) that both Labour and Conservative supporters are in danger of switching to the LibDems over this issue of authoritarianism.
As far as I can see what reportedly happened to Miranda most certainly wasn't legally sound.
Apart from some Northern-Ireland-specific stuff, the only purpose for which a person can be questioned (or detained) under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is "determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)" ie, whether he appears to be "a person who ... is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."
It seems Miranda's detention came nowhere near to falling under that.
There may be other laws under which he could have been questioned and detained, but not under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. IANAL.
""This is something we had an indication that was likely to occur," he said, "but it's not something that we requested, it was something that was done by British law enforcement officials. The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action."
In other words, the actions were demonstrably wrong and we're trying to distance ourselves from it.
There's some confusion in this thread about who the terrorists are. MI5 offers this definition (https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism.html):
The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes:
serious violence against a person;
serious damage to a property;
a threat to a person's life;
a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or
serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system.
The precise wording chosen (" the government or an international governmental organisation") is clearly intended to exclude the possibility that "the government" might itself engage in terrorism. Ignoring that rather clumsy evasion, though, the definition clearly applies to governments above all. Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will", which coincides pretty closely with the definition of terrorism. He also stated that war is the continuation of politics by other means.
All in all, this means that governments have traditionally been the greatest exponents of terrorism - at a conservative estimate, causing three or four orders of magnitude more death and destruction than any non-state terrorists.* One of the things they hate most is when non-state organisations, or even contemptible individuals, attempt to break the state's monopoly on terrorism. Hence the universal panic.
* See, for example, "Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" by R J Rummel http://tinyurl.com/kgudz7x
I'm sure it was legally and procedurally sound, but it was not justified.
Depriving a person of his liberty for nine hours just to ask what flavor tea they had is, in my view, a blatant abuse of power. The fact that terrorism was used as an excuse for this is an intolerable abuse of the system.
I think it is high time a major shuffle happened at the top. We need to pink slip every high-level official who was in on this, without benefits of any kind.
The whole thing is a disgrace for justice and democracy.
The law sys you have to hand over your passwords. Otherwise you go to jail.
I though that you had to EITHER provide passwords or provide them with plain tex of what was encrypted or controled access by a password.
I just hope that he changed all his passwords everywhere as soon as possible; although I suspect that they rummaged through his email and accessed whatever machines remotely before he could change them.
Dave, you might find it useful to do a bit of research before shrieking your indignation next time. El Reg has plenty of articles on how the UK authorities have the legal tools to require you to hand over the password to an encrypted drive. Please go read them as this will help you avoid people pointing and laughing at your ignorance. Oops - too late! ROFLMAO!
This post has been deleted by its author
I suspect he was not read any rights. I'm sufficiently angry that I haven't looked any of this up, but AIUI one has to be cautioned before being placed under arrest. Section 7 of the Terrorism Act under which Mr Miranda was detained didn't need him to be arrested (and he wasn't), and it makes it an offence not to cooperate with the interrogation, so one has no right to remain silent.
Heathrow likes to think that it is the hub destination of choice for international, maybe particularly transatlantic, journeys into and out of the UK and Western Europe. If I was managing competing airports, I'd be asking for permission to put Miranda's image on my advertising. Certainly there will be many who would like to avoid Heathrow if they could. Good news: we may not need that extra runway, Boris.
Under UK law you always have the right to remain silent
'You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you do not mention something which when questioned/now you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence'
However, inferences can be drawn in court if you do choose to remain silent either in court, or when you were questioned by the authorities.
(the only time this doesn't apply is when you have been questioned with the restricted caution)
"Under UK law you always have the right to remain silent"
Nope. A schedule 7 is not an interview under caution. There are very few actual rights - no right to remain silent and no right to legal representation, for example. You can request a solicitor but you have to pay for it yourself, there is no delay waiting for one and failure to answer questions is, in itself, an offence.
The thought occurs that maybe they are worried he also snaffeled a bunch of operational CIA data, not just briefing documents about NSA programs - Right now, they're wondering if they need to send Tom Cruise in to get it back, lest the NOC list get released into the wild should he be detained...
What grated me this morning was reading in the BBC article the statement:
Downing Street has said the case is an "operational matter for the police"
How bloody convenient, the government can say "oh it was the wholly independent police force which stopped Miranda, not us" and sit back and claim no involvement whatsoever despite the fact that it would not just have been the police in the room with Miranda. You can bet your arse M15 were there too.
I do not know if its old age, but I am getting more and more inclined to join / start a new political party to fight these moralless people in "charge". For that statement alone I have probably just marked myself as "troublesome".
It's got fuck all to do with terrorism. Yet another example where that legislation is being abused because it's so convenient for the authorities to have all that extra power under those laws. But it is f***ing wrong!
Can we have the politicians and authorities authorising this abuse of power questioned under Anti Terrorism Acts as well please?
It's got everything to do with terrorism. Its just that most people are too brainwashed to understand who the terrorists really are in the War on Freedom. Most people think they are free but really they are apathetic and on the way to slavery. They call those of us that have been saying that for over a decade conspiracy theorists. We'll see soon enough as the pace of this war is accelerating exponentially.
"From this and no other does a tyrant spring; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
If they (these not terrorists) needed to get a load of data from one place to another, why not stick it on a uSD card and post it? Or any other means of moving large quantities of data without carrying it on a laptop?
You could even swallow the uSD - maybe that's why they kept him for 9 hours?
Get someone else to encrypt the data and not tell you the password until you are safely at your destination. They can't get you to give them something that you don't have. Carrying a signed affidavit confirming that you do not know the password might help. But they'd probably put you in jail anyway.
He would've just used Truecrypt with plausible deniability... given them the password for a mounted encrypted drive which contained something sensitive enough to satisfy them, but not of any real value... then the good stuff would remain truly encrypted so that he can reveal it safely later...
My understanding - which could be wrong - is that David Miranda was stopped on his way to meet a film-maker who makes films about the NSA. He is also the partner, of Glenn Greenwald, who is the first point of contact with Edward Snowden, who is responsible for leaking top secret US/UK files.
I think it would a dereliction of duty if you were not to investigate what David Miranda was bringing across the border, and what his intentions were.
"He didn't cross the border -- he was in international transit...." Like Greenwald, you need to go do some research. In the case of Heathrow it makes not a jot of difference, Miranda crossed the border when he entered UK airspace, and came under English juristicition the minute he stepped off the aircraft. This is not Sheremetyvo.
> I think it would a dereliction of duty if you were not to investigate what David Miranda was bringing across the border
First of all, and most obviously, David Miranda was not looking to bring anything across our borders. He was in transit from Berlin to Rio de Janiero.
Next, just whose duty would have been in dereliction if his belongings were not investigated? As far as I know, there is no such duty. Which laws (UK laws, now) were in danger of being broken, even if Mr Miranda was carrying a copy of every bit of information that Edward Snowden purloined from a United States intelligence agency?
Having read this and the other articles suggested by those above, I've become very depressed and concerned.
This will not be an isolated case. When officials make what they consider to be a mistake - they attempt to fix it. The Guardian article states they were threatened by the UK government, and had to respond by agreeing to destroy data and kit in their basement, but then somewhat sadly pointed out to the spooks that reporting, as with most things now, was international and that it would continue from non UK locations (New York/Brazil) (What a condemnation of the UK that is). Spooks are international but they operate within multiple jurisdictions - this gives them problems. Want to guess where this is going...
'One ring to rule them all'
I've changed my mind. Now I agree with Scottish independence (save yourselves from our overlords, get your own, get different laws); I love Europeans spent most of my life working with them, but just how dangerous would a politically integrated Europe be. I look back at my younger sci-fi reading self and shudder at how brilliant I though world government would be.
Might be our only chance - but then again... "Ireland - please vote again, you got it wrong last time"
Given that the police comment is
Given the only comment from the police is
"Our assessment is that the use of the power in this case was legally and procedurally sound"
Could we dare to hope that some in the police view this legislation as against the public interest and by their actions in detaining Mr Miranda have highlighted it to be so?
Probably not, but one can hope.
@Will 20 He brought nothing across the border he was stopped in transit, he had not, at the time legally entered the UK.
"....@Will 20 He brought nothing across the border he was stopped in transit, he had not, at the time legally entered the UK." Not true. In Heathrow when you are in transit you are on UK soil. You do not pass through passport control because it is assumed you will be leaving shortly to go elsewhere, but you are under English Law whilst in the transit area. Indeed, if you are coming from a country not on the DATV list then you will require a transit visa. As part of international travel arrangements the airline has to give the passport details of all passengers passing through UK transit. If, for example, there was an outstanding arrest warrant in an UK court then the British Police would be waiting to arrest you when you disembarked and entered the transit area. If you were suspected of smuggling something like drugs then again the British would stop and search you in transit under English Law. And if you are suspected of carrying stolen documents in breach of the Official Secrets Act then you will be stopped, interviewed and your possessions searched. Greenwald was incredibly naive or ignorant of the law not to realise that when he sent his boyfriend off as a e-mule.
Matt Bryant frothed:
>if you are suspected of carrying stolen documents in breach of the Official Secrets Act then you will be stopped, interviewed and your possessions searched
They would have to be documents carrying UK protective markings. Official Secrets are official to the UK. There can have been no genuine thought that this was the case, because was David Miranda cautioned that he was suspected of Official Secrets violations? No. He was detained under *terrorism* legislation, interrogated about his contacts, and deprived of his property.
Which is precisely the power granted under Schedule 7 - IE to determine whether a person fits the profile, as defined by Section 40(1)(b). An unauthorised person carrying Official Secrets of the five-eyes which would be useful to a terrorist organisation certainly warrants an investigation, as to what is going on - which is entirely the point of schedule 7.
I don't really recall supporting it. The security forces have been given a task, the prevention of terrorism (amongst others), and a piece of legislation (in this case, the Terrorism Act, 2000). They have a duty to prevent terrorism, using the terrorism act. If people see a problem with this, then the right people to talk to, are the politicans, who seem to be diving away left right and centre! The act has been in force for around 12 years now, so they can hardly claim they haven't had a chance to review it.
It isn't the job of the security forces to make policy. It is the job of the security forces to enact the policy of the government, which has ultimately been selected by the people.
"Matt Bryant frothed..." Well, it was more "typed whilst laughing at the hilarious hyperventilating and bleating of the sheep", but whatever helps you cope with reality.
.....They would have to be documents carrying UK protective markings....." Sorry, wrong! If someone has copied the content out of an official file and given you the copy it is still covered by the Act as you are assisting in the distribution of the secrets contained therein. If they can show you knew the contents were secret then it's even worse for you, but even if the copy was just given to you, ignorance is no defence. Try again.
"....There can have been no genuine thought that this was the case, because was David Miranda cautioned that he was suspected of Official Secrets violations? No. He was detained under *terrorism* legislation...." The police can stop you under any pretence they like, as long as they find the evidence of a different crime and record it correctly they can use it against you. They could have said Miranda was potentially smuggling drugs but the terror laws gave them more time. If they had stopped Miranda under terror laws but found half-a-kilo of cocaine up his rectum then guess what - they would have arrested and charged him with drug-smuggling. If they had unencrypted his drives, analysed the content and found material in breach of the OSA in time, then they would have arrested him regardless of the initial reason/pretence for the interview.
"....Official Secrets are official to the UK....." Hey, guess where Heathrow is? Yeah, the UK! Now, guess where GCHQ, which is the organistaion whose secrets Greenwald has been reporting on, is? Go on, concentrate real hard, you do actually know the answer.... Yeah, the UK too! Now guess which UK Act applies - yes, the OSA! See, if you concetrate even you can see the answers which are right in front of your face.
"The police can stop you under any pretence they like,"
Like the pretence of random checks when they are actually only stopping black guys?
Or the pretence of anti-Terrorism when they are actually bullying a guys partner as punishment for going against the Party?
Or the pretence of an open and democratic society when its actually a neo-facist state run by shadowy figures who appear to be nothing to do with the elected "representatives" ?
Yeah, we should be accepting of these Police "pretences". Nothing wrong there.
"....Like the pretence of random checks when they are actually only stopping black guys?...." Don't talk male genetalia about stuff you know nothing about. I have been stopped and searched twice in London, which is statistically more than the average black person, and I'm not black. Try reading some facts, not propaganda.
But you think they should be able to , right.
I mean the police can do whatever they like so long as they "pretend" to obey the law?
Not sure you know what those are
Not sure where your "facts" about it not being biased are.
Apart from your personal experience of being so suspicious you get stopped twice of course.
Not that the police need to suspect anything. Well, they didn't until section 44 got suspended after massive abuse , by the ECHR.
Even if only a minority of police are pricks who will abuse any law they get their hands on , so long as the police refuse to handle these cases in a satisfactory manner I am all for keeping broadly/badly written laws away from them as much as possible.
As pointed out in another Telegraph article, young black males ARE most likely to commit the majority of street crimes, but ignoring that fact through political correctness is not helping (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100019154/by-talking-frankly-about-black-crime-rod-liddle-is-combatting-racism-not-causing-it/). Acting surprised that police may actually stop the very group responsible for the majority of street crimes is simply too stupidly PC for words. And my own example shows the police are not targeting just blacks in total exclusion of all other groups, so again you are talking male genetalia.
From the article you quoted,
at worst 60% of street crime committed by young african-carribean males
From my article, 30 times more likely to be stopped
Stopping 30 times as many people from a certain group and searching them for knives and guns is going to be contributing somewhat to that increase in "Gun and knife crime" for that group as well.
Taking into account the relative populations vs crime proportion, I'm seeing that at most a justifiable 10 times more likely stop rate . For those stoppages that were a result of crimes in the area for which the police knew only the likely race of the perp, then 7 times more likely would be justified.
Other biases that would likely lower the stoppable percentage of white people are not taken into account here, and would only serve to make the disparity worse.
30 times indicates a bias is in operation somewhere.
And by somewhere, I mean the police officers head.
Also, my article was from last year as opposed to 2009 and I'm pretty sure the EHRC are capable of doing basic statistics as well.
Not that this matters to you Matt.
I mean the modern day policeman is allowed to do anything he likes, and use whatever laws he can twist to make that happen, because they are paragons of truth and justice.
If a policeman tells you (not) to do something , he shouldn't have to have a legal basis for that, his opinion is enough, right? And if you object to that (on the justifiable basis that this isn't a crime for instance) then they can just pull out some of these "well written" laws and declare you a potential terrorist , random stoppee (suspicious due to not doing what a policeman told him to do) or whatever. Notable in that they don't actually arrest you for whatever "law" they made up in their heads that they thought should exist. They just abuse these other laws instead.
And of course they are overseen by a government who feel that commonly agreed human rights are just too much trouble, so not much hope there.
Once again, in your determination to baaaaaaah-lieve the police are nothing but racists, you are again missing two glaring facts. Firstly, the majority of the crimes committed by young black males are in neighborhoods which are predominantly black, so when the police conduct stop and search in such target areas they are going to be making almost 100% black stops, which skews the figures. Secondly, because the crimes are being committed in black areas, the victims are largely other black people. If the coppers were too racist to give a damn they'd be leaving the street crims to pick on other blacks, and instead be spending their time solely on crimes that more predominantly affect white people (like burglary), so the number of stop and searches show the police can't be the racists you insist they are. Operation Trident, which is the investigation of black-on-black gun crime amongst the dealers, is a perfect example not of racism but of the reality your socio-political stupidity makes you completely blind to. I would suggest you go invest in a clue.
You do seem to be making a lot of sheep noises Matt, should probably get that looked at.
I'm guessing you didn't actually bother to read the linked article? Your point is mentioned but as no evidence is being given of the need to stop people in a certain area, it is indicative of a bias, either in the street use of Section 60, or the issuing of Section 60 orders initially.
As to why the police bother to stop street crimes... probably something to do with job performance, white collar crime and burglaries take a lot more time and effort to solve and bring to court.
The fact is that these bad laws mask the biases of the officers involved, by giving them the opportunity to assert their own prejudices without having to report the real reasons and be subject to sanction.
They also offer the opportunity for Police officers to pull out these laws as the "Trump" card which allows them to punish you for doing something they don't like but isn't illegal.
Fact: The police are biased in their use of stop and search and have promised to "Work with the EHRC" to resolve that
Fact: These badly written laws are being abused by (some) of the police, to the extent that some of them got revoked by the European Court of Human Rights.
Wow, nice bit of selective blindness there Matt.
Finally gotten down to the ad-hominen , having exhausted the other avenues?
It nice and easy to call someone's viewpoint unfounded if you ignore the foundations, even through they are right there in front of you.
And an well founded opinion that the Police should not be given evidence-less , wide reaching and highly abusable powers is not a prejudice.
I didn't think that these powers were a good idea when they were first put in place, and I definitely don't think so now, after the abuse has happened.
Unfortunate that the Lib Dems have just vanished from public view, after all the "Protection of Freedom" talk they put about has clearly been quashed by the spymaster general.
"Wow, nice bit of selective blindness there Matt....." LOL, so I explain how police doing stop and search in predominantly black areas skews the figures, and how their doing so when the victims are predominantly black shows they can't be as racist as you insist, yet I'm the one being "selective"? It is very obvious you have an unreasoning and factually inaccurate belief that the police are all racist, which I have disproven. Go get a clue, you're not worth wasting serious time on.
"....And an well founded opinion...." An opinion based on prejudice and paranoia, with no grounding in reality. You want to baaaaaaah-lieve, end of. Trying to convince one of The Fauthful like you is like trying to get them to acknowledge the Berlin Wall fell because Communism was a failure whilst Capitalism wasn't.
"....As I said Matt, if you had bothered to actually read the linked article, your point about specific areas was covered, conclusion, still biased....." Yeah, because we're not allowed to upset the PC brigade by saying black males are more likely (by a massive statistical margin) to be responsible for street crimes such as mugging. Not that many years ago one of the police commissioners for London got in trouble for breaking the crime stats down by race - white people did the majority of burglaries, the majority of car crime, and blacks did the majority of muggings. Simple, undeniable facts based on statistical reporting, but the jornos only whittered on about the bit about muggings and claimed it meant the police were racist, all egged on by the PC crowd (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/mugging-is-it-a-black-and-white-issue-1590337.html). The excuses the press threw out - blacks live in predominantly poorer areas, the crime world is racist in itself (!), all to avoid admitting the simple, statistically-proven fact that young black males commit 80% of the mugging a in London, despite making up only a fraction of the population. I can sense your PCness squirming from here - you so want to deny it, to dress it up with some socio-political excuse, but it is a simple fact. By reporting that fact, the police are not being racist, they are not saying every black must be a mugger, they are simply making efficient use of statistical data to target resources effectively, just as they target white car thieves (which the PC crowd don't bat an eyelid over). Get over it.
No, we have to pretend there is equal value in stop and searching lots of white or Asian people, in areas where it is often hard to find a white or Asian person, just to keep the PC crowd happy? Get a clue. With prejudiced numpties like you the police simply can't win - if they target the group that commit the crimes they are accused of being racist, and if they don't then they are accused of "abandoning" the black neighborhoods in favour of protecting predominantly white ones. You have fail built in at a lack-of-educational level, you are simply too indoctrinated to see the reality of the situation.
Looks like the Police and the Equality and Human Rights Commission disagree with you Matt.
Oh, and the IPCC as well:
Stop and Search, now only half as Racist:
Metropolitan police - Still pretty racist:
You realize that your unsubstantiated statement don't really hold out very well against the actual evidence and reports?
Maybe you can write your own report "Police: Magical Justice Fairies who can do nothing wrong" and send that out
Nice work going down the list of Logical Fallacies as well.
I guess you have trouble seeing other peoples arguments with that huge ass in your face. At least I assume there is a huge ass in your face, what with your tongue being so far up the Police's rectum that you think you can speak for them.
"Looks like the Police and the Equality and Human Rights Commission disagree with you Matt...." Looks like you are desperately avoiding admitting the truth of what Paul Condon reported, that young black males we responsible for 80% of muggings in London. For you, saying that fact is racist, because your PCness means you simply have to shy away from it.
First, let's look at your link to the Font Of PCness, the Equality &Human Rights Commission. Did you even read the summary? ".....The Commission therefore initiated legal compliance action against two forces, Leicestershire and Thames Valley...." (page 4). So London, where the vast majority of stop and searches were made, and the vast majority of black stops were made, and where the biggest differences in black-vs-white muggers is reported, did not get any action taken against it. Thanks for showing that the London police are not as racist as you insist, despite blacks still being 3.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched (page 7). Maybe you were hoping no-one would read the doc you claimed backed up your ridiculous prejudices?
Your second link is broken, and then we get the IPCC report on the Met dealing effectively with race complaints, which says the PROCESS is not as good as it should be, NOT that the Met is institutionally racist as you insisted. Again, try reading your own links.
".....You realize that your unsubstantiated statement don't really hold out very well against the actual evidence and reports?...." So I have provided a simple statistical fact, as provided by Paul Condon - 80% of muggings in London were committed by young black males in black areas, the majority if their victims being other blacks - and all you have supplied is two links that do not support what you claim and a broken link. Hmmm, think you need to try a whole lot harder of you want us to accept your prejudice as factually based.
A friend that works for the police in London has given me the following example of the PC double-standard applied to street policing. For over a decade, he has worked with other police forces on combatting football hooliganism, and he says it is an easy job. No-one likes football hooligans, they are almost always white males, and so the police can use just about as much resource and whatever powers as they liked without politicians or the PC crowd complaining. Indeed, the politicians see brownie points in being seen to be "tough on hooliganism". Police on match day stopping and searching white male football supporters draw not a whimper from the PC crowd. If someone has a history of hooliganism or is suspected of trying to arrange trouble at a match, then the police can get a court order to prevent them even traveling to the city the match is being held in, again without a murmur of disproval about "restrictions on liberty" from the PC crowd.
But then, every year, he also has to work with the Notting Hill Carnival. This is a PC nightmare for the police. They cannot stop and search as they wish for fear of offending the PC crowd. Journos are hanging around just desperate to generate a story of "police racism". Can the police stop even known black street criminals from going to Notting Hill as they do football hooligans? Not a chance. And all this when you are still statistically MORE LIKELY to be the victim of a street crime at Notting Hill Carnival than any football match in the last decade. The police still made 111 arrests on the first day of this year's Carnival, and that is considered an improvement! But don't let simple facts get in the way of your politically correct prejudices.
>which says the PROCESS is not as good as it should be,
“This report shows that, though there are some examples of good practice, in general there is an unwillingness or inability to deal with these complaints robustly and effectively. Too often, complaints are dismissed without proper investigation or resolution, complainants are not properly engaged with, and lessons are not learnt.
“This in part reflects poor complaints handling in general. But, in relation to race complaints, it can exacerbate a negative experience if the racial element is not properly addressed. It can also mean that officers are not held to account, or do not learn from their actions.
“We know that there is less confidence both in policing and in the complaints system among BME communities. If the Metropolitan Police Service is serious about building that confidence, there will need to be a cultural change to complaints handling.
“Our recommendations are designed to support that change, building on the good practice and guidance that exists. This will help ensure, as the MPS Commissioner has promised, that there is indeed zero tolerance for racist behaviour in the MPS.”
Sure its all about the process. I.e. without a process to be followed strictly, the investigations are not being handled fairly in these cases. Wonder why that would be?
>Looks like you are desperately avoiding admitting the truth of what Paul Condon reported, that young >black males we responsible for 80% of muggings in London. For you, saying that fact is racist, because >your PCness means you simply have to shy away from it.
So, how is that proving or not proving that the police are acting in a racist fashion Matt? Given the reports have TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT and APPROVE OF EVIDENCE BASED POLICING. But keep parroting that over and over again why don't you. As it is the sole fact you are able to produce and isn't actually related to the case at hand.
And hey, lets move the target to just the MPS, They aren't as racist in stop and search as some other forces because they had to put in place an operation in 2006 to prevent their racism in stop and search... I.e process trumping racism. Same issue as with them having to put in place a complaints process.
As regards your Notting hill carnival hearsay , 1 million people are going to Notting Hill Carnival. And the environment is a lot more conducive to crime than a football stadium.
And lets conflate a set of laws specifically applied to football hooligans (Public order act 1986 and Football spectators act 1989) and then complain you can't stop random criminals going places under those acts. Man, imagine that 100% of Football hooliganism restriction laws were applied against football hooligans.
I wonder what the percentage is on the "Prevent free movement of muggers" law is. Wait, there isn't a law like that? Damn, there goes that argument.
Yeah, nice edits, but still no accusation of the institutional used racism you insist is there. In fact, it is still saying that the majority of cases are investigated, which would not happen if the police were as racist as you blindly baaaaaah-lieve.
"....So, how is that proving or not proving that the police are acting in a racist fashion Matt?...." It is core to explaining why police would be more likely to stop young black males, especially in London, the police force which - again - your E&HR report clears of any racial bias DESPITE it being 3.7 times more likely they will stop and search a young black male. How intentionally dense can you be? You desperately want to baaaaah-lieve that the only reason the police would want to stop a black is because they are racist. Your failure has obviously been ingrained from an early age, probably the fault of your parents.
".....As regards your Notting hill carnival hearsay...." So not only do you want to ignore statistics, you want to discount anything that might demonstrate the constraints the police might work under due to the PC attitude. You are beyond blinkered, you are living in denial.
"....I wonder what the percentage is on the "Prevent free movement of muggers" law is. Wait, there isn't a law like that? Damn, there goes that argument." Dear know-nothing, try reading up on the ASBO under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I'm not surprised you don't know about that seeing as you have shown you know fuck all about anything else. Once again, you have been shown to be completely wrong on all counts, but please do carry on being an ignorant and prejudiced failure as it is your right to do so, just be aware that the English laws on defamation include organisations....
Glad you liked my bringing up parts of the report that back my argument.
Oh, you expected the IPCC to flat out say "Yeah, the police are racist" in their report?
Like that's going to happen.
Matt, I backed up my statements with independent evidence, your "My mate told me" doesn't come to the same standard, precisely because it's just your word on your mates word. "My mate who is a copper told me that yeah he's seen a lot of racist behaviour but doesn't report it because it seems like snitching". See how that works?
And the EHRC doesn't "Clear the MPS of racial bias". They report that measures already in effect are acting to reduce racial bias, more so that for those forces that don't have a separate oversight mechanism for stop and search. I'm also not saying that the only reason a police officer would stop a black person is because they are racist (Hi Strawman) . I'm saying, evidence based investigation has show that police forces throughout the county have been shown to use it in a racially biased fashion. That bias has to exhibit itself somewhere, so there are coppers somewhere on the beat that are allowing racism to affect who they stop and search. See how that reasoned argument proceeds directly from the evidence Matt?
As for ABSOs, a class of law usable against anyone, instead of a specific class of acts only for use against football hooligans not being used against criminals because criminals are black? Is that your argument ? Got any source for that other than "my mate who is a police officer"?
Firstly the main driver for reducing the number of ASBO's is that the government wants to get rid of them.
Also they cost £1500 per person to enforce and require a criminal level standard of evidence to get one.
I guess they at least managed to get ASBO's against all the white street crims though, that would reduce crime by 20% and no-one would complain, right?
"Glad you liked my bringing up parts of the report that back my argument....." Poor deluded Judy, the report did nothing of the sort. Please do show us on which page of either is the statement saying that the Met police is institutionally racist as you insist. Oh, you can't, because neither says that. Try again.
"....Oh, you expected the IPCC to flat out say "Yeah, the police are racist" in their report? Like that's going to happen....." But you posted the links to those reports insisting that was what they DID say, but now you're saying they don't, we have to read between the lines? LOL, backpedal any fast and you'll go back in time! And what exactly would be stopping the painfully PC Equality and Human Rights Commission saying the police were institutionally racists, as you insisted their report said, if they actually thought that? The would be nothing stopping the E&HRC saying it, in fact they would love to as it justifies their existence and continued oversight of such matters. Truth is they don't say it either, which means BOTH the reports you linked to DON'T say what you claimed they did. You lose again.
".... See how that reasoned argument proceeds directly from the evidence Matt?..." LOL, you mean see how you change your story when the first one got totally debunked! And the report says nothing of the sort, again it is your deluded insinuations based on your prejudices and NOTHING in the report backs up your new and equally stupid and prejudiced statements. Don't worry, we get it, you have an unreasoning hatred of the police and you can't stand it when others show it for the groundless prejudice it is.
"....As for ABSOs, a class of law usable against anyone....." Which you said didn't exist, remember? So now you admit they do exist, please go ask your rectum (the bit of your body that seems to do what you consider "thinking") why are the police reluctant to use ASBOs on black street criminals in relation to the Notting Hill Carnival? The answer is because when they did they got smeared as being "racist" by PC numpties like you.
"....my mate who is a police office...." I'n sure you would like to ignore him seeing as you very obviously cannot counter the point he raised. I hope you enjoy your paranoid delusions and never have reason to call for the help of the police, because actually coming into contact with one for the first time might destroy so many of your ridiculous prejudices you'd probably die from the shock.
I think you'll find you are the one who has moved the focus to just the MPS Matt, so if anyone is moving the goalposts, seems to be on your side.
I guess the fact the EHRC is concerned and has these open inquiries indicates everything is A-OK right Matt? It clearly would be better for all involved if we just let the police get on and do whatever they want.
Not obey the law or address their biases, but do whatever they want, right?
Are you in the streets calling for the end of the EHRC, I mean these PC meddlers are clearly why the crime rates are rocketing.
I think you'll find I said there was not a "Prevention of the free movement of Muggers act" Matt.
And that there is a big difference in applying an act for use against football hooligans only against football hooligans, vs applying an act that could apply to anyone only against (or not against ) muggers and street criminals.
Which was my point, totally over your head of course which must be as mentioned around waist height.
"The answer is because when they did they got smeared as being "racist" by PC numpties like you."
Did they, I'm struggling to find the evidence of that anywhere to be honest? You didn't seem to address my point that by your logic they could easily ban all the white street crims with no complaints.
And the retort that I can't counter your imaginary "police friends" unsubstantiated hearsay kind of ignores the points that I did counter it, and it's imaginary hearsay
Also, you appear to have switched to arguing with someone named Judy?
I guess I'm not the delusional one here. First Imaginary police friends, and then this Judy person.
Still, keep that head of rage stocked up Matt. Authoritarians love people like you , willing to overlook anything in the defence of those in charge, regardless of what they do or how they behave.
"I think you'll find you are the one who has moved the focus to just the MPS Matt, so if anyone is moving the goalposts, seems to be on your side....." Don't talk bollocks. Well, more bollocks, that is. It was you that went off on a shrieking fit about stop and search, miles away from the topic of the thread, due to you being unable to accept that the stop of Miranda was legal. You're so far from the original goalposts you could be on a different planet (which would explain your complete lack of knowledge of English law). It was originally about the powers used to force Miranda to hand over his encryption keys. Nice try, but pretending you're not retreating with your tails between your legs is not fooling anyone.
"....Not obey the law or address their biases, but do whatever they want, right?...." As has already been explained, the stop of Miranda was completely legal, you're just too stupid to understand the legal facts. And your silliness about bias has also been thoroughly debunked, so you are nil-for-two. Try again, only this time get an adult to help you, mmmkay?
Again Matt, you are the one with the focus on a single (factual) statement I made a few dozen posts ago.
So now its a total shift back to the Miranda argument eh?
And how those laws are highly abusable and shouldn't exist because abusable laws have been shown to be abused, legality aside. Thus my offhand statement on abused and racially biased stop and search, both section 6 and section 44, which you seized upon like a rabid dog and ran off for what, 20 posts?
My arguments are coherent and grounded in facts, your arguments are frankly incoherent and give the impression of much mouth frothing.
You have a micro focus on how the police aren't provably biased (yes they are), and seem to think its all just a huge conspiracy to get down the hard working common copper (it isn't) run by some huge lefty conspiracy (it's not).
These controls and investigations are part of what keeps authoritarianism and unchecked bias from running rife within our essential organizations, something you dismiss as unnecessary as you appear to be starting from some premise where everything is perfect and your friends the police would never do anything wrong.
You don't know all the police Matt, and you don't run an organization that investigates and provides the checks and balances on them. Others do, and they have spoken, you just don't want to hear it.
As for David Miranda, putting laws in place for one explicit purpose and then using them for another is dishonest and cheats the voting public of their choice. It's Anti-democratic and frankly abuse against society as a whole. Laws like that should not exist, or people using them like that should be stopped and themselves held accountable. If the latter doesn't happen, then the former should be enforced.
"....So now its a total shift back to the Miranda argument eh?...." I can see why you'd be upset about being forced back to the original topic, seeing as you have studiously avoided it. Could that be because you know you've already lost that one? This is my surprised face, honest.
".....And how those laws are highly abusable and shouldn't exist because abusable laws have been shown to be abused, legality aside....." Yet you completely fail to show how these laws are being abused. Stopping Miranda in transit in Heathrow was legal as it comes under English law. In the case of Miranda, information relating to how GCHQ intercepts terrorist communications would certainly be of value to terror groups like AQ, so the use of anti-terror laws were appropriate. The confiscation of his equipment and the request for decryption keys are therefore also completely legal, especially given the OSA infringement. It's just Rushbridget and Greenwald were too naive to realise the stupidity of using Greenspan's boyfriend as an e-mule, and the legality of it all really upsets the sheeple. Rushbridger and Greenspan failed and the continued frothing and bleating of the sheeple like you just makes it all the sweeter.
".....My arguments are coherent and grounded in facts...." Your "arguments" have nothing to do with the topic, fail to support what you argued, and expose how desperate you are to continue frothing after you have lost the original thread. But don't stop, it is very amusing, in a child-throwing-a-tantrum kind of way. All you have shown us is your unreasoning hatred of the police, probably based on some hip'n'trendy propaganda fed to you by Z-list wannabe "rebels". Don't worry, apparently Wikipedia call that kind of complete failure a "strategic victory", like Manning going down for "only" 35 years, or A$$nut being "safe" locked up in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Yes, I'm afraid that sound is me laughing at you.
".....You have a micro focus on how the police aren't provably biased ....." LOL, so you introduced the point, then fail to defend it, and now your whining about my "focus" on it?!?!
".....These controls and investigations are part of what keeps authoritarianism and unchecked bias...." But your own "evidence" didn't show the bias you insisted was there, so now you want to shift the argument AGAIN to the controls themselves? Talk about galloping goalposts!
".....You don't know all the police Matt....." It is very obvious I know far more police than you, probably you don't know any, and have probably never had reason to see them in action either. I'm guessing you're one of those Mom's basement "revolutionaries", insisting you're fighting the "righteous fight" from the comfort provided by others. Please do explain your irrational hatred of The Man, or is it just you can't actually explain it, you just assumed the mantle because you thought it was "cool"? LMAO!
"....Others do, and they have spoken, you just don't want to hear it...." You mean like the IPCC and E&HRC, both of which you quoted but didn't show any evidence of the institutional racism you insisted was there? Seems more like others spoke and you heard what you wanted to hear. Yes, we get it, you are a baaaaah-liever, and mere facts and the law shouldn't get in the way of what you have been told to think. Fail!
I think you'll find you are the one flailing about looking for reasons to justify the actions of the police in pretty much all these circumstances.
You appear to be the one with the complete blindness to the facts, and how these things are applied in the real world. Any evidence presented is some kind of lefty conspiracy , and only the strong can be righteous , right?
Give it up Matt, you are completely unable to accept facts, or that your arguments are in fact, total bullshit.
And your amazing accusations of me moving the goalposts always seem to follow a post where you shift the focus to somewhere else yourself, so self delusional as well. Plenty of evidence, plenty of ongoing actions, plenty of reports. I mean you could just google yourself for "uk police racism".
I guess you then immediately dismiss anything you find there as clearly made up right?
Doesn't fit in the your little shiny happy world view, so it all just made up by that "lefty conspiracy of Z-list rebels. "
I could have gone on to produce numerous additional example, the chief officer of the MPS saying they are institutionally racist and always would be. The Metropolitan Black Police association says "Met still institutionally racist". And that's just for the MPS after you narrowed down your focus to just them.
However, this was just a throwaway comment I made that you seized upon and somehow thought that attacking its validity would justify your authoritarian world view. I'm not the one who started this series of attacks, it was you Matt. You couldn't let it stand that someone somewhere might think that holiest of holies, the Police, could be anything other than perfect.
And of course anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a "rebel" . I suppose you believe we should all be rounded up and put in camps for insisting on little things like independent oversight, well defined and well written laws, applied without bias, that sort of thing.
Amazing how the "rebels" seem to have all the reports, media outlets and even a number of the politicians, whereas "the Man" seems to have, erm, frothy mouthed morons like you.
Its a real plus for the police where their friends are apparently foul mouthed, abrasive, shortsighted internet trolling prats like you Matt. Really makes them seem like the reasonable people you insist they are.
You claim I shifted focus to the controls? My point was this, Shiny happy morons like you think everything is fine, and ignore any evidence to the contrary, and point at the people implementing the controls as part of a lefty conspiracy. Given this attitude, I assume you think there should be no controls, as everything is happy and shiny and fine all the time. Thus allowing all this shit to happen a lot more , and with no one doing anything about it until , yeah, you are in an "actual" rebels situation, with riots, martial law and all that shit . That is where unchecked bias and authoritarianism leads, to the break down of society and civil order.
I don't have an irrational hatred of "the Man" Matt, as "the Man" doesn't exist.
I do have a healthy interest in the direction our society is going, and adjust my opinions appropriately, based on the evidence presented. I think a reasonable balance should be struck between liberty and safety. I also think that the will of the people should be obeyed by treating the law with respect, and not a tool to be abused at a whim.
You on the other hand have an opinion, and dismiss evidence and judge things based on that.
Your insistence that David Miranda is "involved in committing, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism".
Is total made up bullshit. That's what that law was put in place to be used for, and in this case it wasn't.
And not "accidentally" or "we just needed to check out that these encrypted documents aren't terrorist plans", deliberate, premeditated abuse of a law put in place for specific purposes, being used outside of that purpose. I have no doubt the UK government wanted to see what documents he might have on him and question him about his partners activities. They should have found an actual law that would allow them to do that. Or if unable to, then you know, act in a legal fashion and not bother him. Instead they decided that the "national interest" trumps the law and then make up some bullshit about how its all legal as a smokescreen. And that leads to the question, who is deciding what is "in the national interest" and what else might they think should be extralegally acted on. Because that , again, is where you start going once you start down this path.
"....I think you'll find you are the one flailing about looking for reasons to justify the actions of the police in pretty much all these circumstances...." I don't have to justify them, they are already pronounced legal. In case you missed it, the wife of a terrorist that challenged the airport stop laws has just lost her case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616), with the judge pronouncing them not only legal but thoroughly applicable. I don't think even Dickileaks can call that one a "strategic victory". Enjoy!
The rest of your post is just more irrational bleating and frothing rage, waaaaay off-topic and still completely lacking in any verifiable facts to back up your ridiculous baaaaah-liefs. But I love the bit where you completely ignore the view of real legal professionals and attempt to rewrite the anti-terror laws:
"....Your insistence that David Miranda is "involved in committing, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism"...." Which is not the requirement for Schedule 7 stop and search. As the BBC explains (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133) in layman terms even you might understand; "....Unlike with some other police powers to stop and search, there is no requirement for an officer to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is involved with terrorism before they are stopped....." And you can forget claiming the use of the powers was "arbitary" as Miranda was suspected of carrying stolen GCHQ documents that would be of interest to terrorist groups, with an intent to facilitate the illegal distribution of those documents. Yes, you fail again! LMAO!
The stop wasn't magically "Random". You get that?
So they knew full well who he was, and that he wasn't a terrorist. Nor was he visiting a terrorist or married to one.
So just straight up abuse. Schedule 7 also limits questioning to things that are , essentially, about whether or not you are a terrorist. Pretty easy to establish that given they knew exactly who he was and what he was doing passing through Britain, as well as where he had been recently. So really a great case for keeping him 9 hours just to make sure he isn't a terrorist.
Greenwald isn't a terrorist either, and your assertion that as he might have documents of interest to terrorist somehow makes him a terrorist? Also crap.
There are plenty of laws to stop and catch actual criminals Matt, and that what they are to be used for.
People giving a sneering wink an "oh, look , its all fine, its just a "Random" stop and he *could* be a terrorist." are the worst kind of apologists.
As for your "Legal Experts", well the people who wrote the law think its a bad use. And so do a bunch of other people. Saying "its all legal, honest" isn't going to shut people up Matt, it just going to make them determined to get the law changed or removed, as its clear to pretty much everyone (apart from you and the people abusing the law) that using it was wrong. Especially when you have to use that "but we can randomly stop anyone for no reason" phrase along with that "its legal" statement just to rub in the fact that , yes, you really didn't randomly stop him , and , no, you really didn't give a shit if he was a terrorist, you just wanted an excuse to question someone in a heavy handed way, without legal protections, and the ability to threaten prison time if he didn't co-operate.
"....The stop wasn't magically "Random". You get that?....." LOL! Having lost on all other points, and having failed to drag the topic off into your fantasy baaaaah-liefs of institutionalised police racism, you now want to bleat on about whether the stop was random or not? WTF? Who CARES if it was random, it DOESN'T NEED to be random to satisfy the legal requirements, as recently proven in the case of Sylvie Beghal.
"....So they knew full well who he was, and that he wasn't a terrorist....." Massive fail - you don't have to plant bombs to be legally classified as a terrorist. Providing support, either monetary (such as by dodgy Islamic charities) or materially (such as through websites with Islamist and terror material) count too. There is zero doubt (except amongst the blinkered sheeple) that information on the methods used by GCHQ to intercept terrorist communications would be of use to terror groups, so there is also zero legal doubt that their distribution, whether intentionally for terrorism or not, constitutes interference with anti-terror activities if nothing else, making the use of anti-terror laws both applicable and completely legal. You can go on insisting they aren't but that legal matter has already been tested and shown valid, just accept you have lost again and get over it.
"....Greenwald isn't a terrorist either, and your assertion that as he might have documents of interest to terrorist somehow makes him a terrorist? Also crap...." Except I never accused Greenspan of being a terrorist, so it is you that is talking crap. Why don't you wait and see if Greenspan is ever stupid enough to step on British soil before you start making groundless accusations. After all, so far he seems to feel much safer putting his boyfriend in the firing line.
".....There are plenty of laws to stop and catch actual criminals Matt, and that what they are to be used for....." The Official Secrets Act is a law, go read up on it.
".....without legal protections...." You mean apart from having a solicitor? Yeah, no legal protection at all - not! I'm not keeping score, but I reckon that's at least your third completely bogus statement in one post! What a shining example of self-delusion and paranoid fantasist you are.
"....Saying "its all legal, honest" isn't going to shut people up Matt, it just going to make them determined to get the law changed or removed..." Agreed, being proven repeatedly wrong doesn't seem to shut you up at all. Good luck getting any of the laws repealed, you would need to gain some form of popular majority for that, and it is patently clear every election that you and your fellow sheeple are the 0.099%, not the 99% you claim. Enjoy!
You just keep on missing the point.
You are just unable to process the idea that laws are intended for one thing, and being used for other purposes is wrong, even if "Legal".
The racism point? That is entirely applicable. All the section 6 and 44 stops were "Legal" in the strict sense. The fact that bias was being applied or the stops (in the case of camera toting tourists or kids trying to film parades) totally ridiculous didnt make them "illegal". Instead, the laws got changed or removed, oversight got put in place. Why? Because although technically legal, using them that way was acknowledged as wrong.
What is the mechanism for that Matt? It is mealymouthed shiny happy people like you insisting it's all fine and we should just shut up?
Or is it cynical , concerned and critical responses of "That isn't right" by people getting the law changed instead.
"Zero doubt" that a highly tenuous chain of reasoning that could just as well apply to engineers, architects , many scientists, makes someone a target for anti-terrorism laws. And of course most if the liberal press in general if they dare to challenge any anti-terror operations. Hey, look, you can now just recursively stop anyone who reported negatively on this case, for interfering with an anti-terror operation.
"Zero doubt" does unfortunately describe your attitude towards anything the police do, or in fact anything that disagrees with your hard wired beliefs.
Having a police (or MI5) provided lawyer isn't the same as independent legal advice, either, in this case, he refused the lawyer because why would you trust a lawyer provided by someone who is clearly prepared for you specifically. You think the lawyer would have given him independent legal advice and told him to only answer questions about terrorism? I think your naivety is showing.
The official secrets act is a law I agree. Pity they didn't use it but of course, it doesn't allow you to question people under threat of imprisonment, instead you have to arrest people, take them to a police station , allow them phone calls, that kind of thing.
And as for being proven repeatedly wrong, I don't think so. I imagine if anyone else was bothering to follow this thread they also would not be on the side of the Lol'ing, Baahing, authoritarian prat. Your attempts to belittle me just make you look small Matt.
And as for getting the law repealed, thanks for the encouragement. I do actually carefully consider the platforms (and individual voting records it applicable) of the candidates, rather than voting for any one party in particular by habit. Hopefully one of them will actually keep their principles once in power, but so far the outlook does seem poor. Still, even without a majority it appears change can happen , section 44 got repealed for instance.
Also odd that you consider "us" to be the 0.099%, yet refer to "us" as the sheep. Whoever "us" are, presumably the "rebels" you mentioned earlier.
You are the one going along with the party line, Matt, you are also the one making the sheep noises, and claim you represent the views of most people.
Take a good hard look at yourself Matt. Notice the wool over your eyes.
"....You just keep on missing the point...." If by missing the point you mean showing you wrong on the topic thread and every point you raised then guilty.
".....You are just unable to process the idea that laws are intended for one thing, and being used for other purposes is wrong, even if "Legal"....." They were used for the process intended, otherwise their use would be illegal, which I have already shown was not the case. It is YOU that are unable to accept those simple facts because it would upset your fragile fantasy alternate reality baaaaaah-liefs. For you the measures MUST BE illegal because you elevate people like Greenwald and Assange to the point of being gods, to whom man-made laws simply shouldn't apply, so it hurts you to see them fail to predict the actions of mere mortals like the UK authorities. It's truly amusing to watch you shriek and bleat in despair.
"...Having a police (or MI5) provided lawyer isn't the same as independent legal advice...." Firstly, where did it say he had a stooge lawyer? Miranda was given a call to any lawyer he liked, and Greenwald himself admits he sent additional Guardian lawyers and Brazilian officials to the airport as well. So take that lie and shove it. You are simply wrong, again, yet again.
"....The official secrets act is a law I agree. Pity they didn't use it...." LOL, I understand the police are readying a prosecution case for the authorities involving the OSA, so again you are simply wrong. Again. Yet again. What would really be novel if you were actually right about ANYTHING! Here's an easy one to get you started, one within even your capabilities - what colour is the sky? I would suggest you don't follow your usual modus operandi and wait for Greenwald or Assange or similar wannabe revolutionary to tell you what colour they want you to think it is.
"....And as for getting the law repealed, thanks for the encouragement. I do actually carefully consider the platforms (and individual voting records it applicable) of the candidates...." I'm hopeful that will help when you actually grow up to be old enough to vote. LMAO!
Well, at least you're consistent - you completely and totally fail again. Yet again.
You seemed to have overlooked the point about how laws get changed when abused even when the use of them is technically "Legal" but obviously wrong. Although even the technical "legality" of the questioning is pretty suspect here, it's going to be hard to show that what with the no lawyers allowed.
Let me know when you find an actual argument.
You should read up on the stop Matt before putting forth your made up version of events?
He was offered a lawyer of their providing.
He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself.
A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer
Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours.
If the government actually uses the OSA against them, then good for them, that's what the act is for.
I'm guessing however they plan to put a case together against Greenwald or the Guardian et al for publishing the documents. That would actually give them access to legal options like extradition and the like (maybe, depends on the treaties). I am all for using law appropriately, what I don't want is laws being abused for purposes outside what they are intended for as this abuse , if allowed to stand , drastically broadens the effective scope of a law well beyond it's original framers.
If they had stopped David under the OSA. and demanded the return or destruction of documents in his possession that were covered by the official secrets act, as allowed by section 6, and then invoked RIPA to ask him to provide the plain text or decrypt his files if he claimed he didn't have any, then I would actually have had no problem with it. Of course this wouldn't have allowed 9 hours of forced questioning etc. and would have involved taking him to a police station, lawyers and so on.
I don't believe there would be a case to put him in prison under the OSA so long as he complied with that request. So I think it is unlikely that the case they are preparing is against him directly. Also, it's a lot easier to arrest someone when they are in your country rather than wait until he has left and try to extradite him.
I have to break your bubble Matt, but unlike you I don't have some huge emotional dedication to Assange or Greenwald. I personally find Assange to be quite distasteful. If you could point me at another source for these interesting revelations about how the NSA and so on are spying on everyone however, then you would probably be detained at an airport for 9 hours....
Again, comparing the content of our posts Matt, I'm pretty sure who comes across as the more immature.
"Again Matt....." LOL, you're not tired of being shown to be repeatedly and completely wrong yet? Blimey, the stupid is strong with this one! Ah well, let's just enjoy whatever whimsical fantasy you come up with whilst waiting for the late night movie to come on.
"....You seemed to have overlooked the point about how laws get changed when abused even when the use of them is technically "Legal" but obviously wrong....." But how is it "wrong"? And for laws to be changed there has to be a majority of people that agree they are wrong and want their MPs to change said laws, so where is your popular movement against them? Are backbench Tories revolting over them? Are the opposition standing up and demanding their repeal? Nope. As I pointed out to you before, you and the rest of the sheeple are the 0.099%, not the 99%, and just because you deeply want something to happen does not mean it will. Enjoy!
".....Although even the technical "legality" of the questioning is pretty suspect here...." Not according to the actual legally trained people (of which you very obviously are not, to the point where I would actually question if you have been fully pottie trained) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616
"....If the government actually uses the OSA against them....". Oh puh-lease, that is such an obvious lie. It is patently obvious that you think Miranda and co have done nothing wrong and you will shriek and bleat just as pointlessly when a case is brought against them. What an epic failure of a pretense.
".....I don't believe there would be a case to put him in prison under the OSA so long as he complied with that request....." Again, I suggest you go read up on the law instead of blindly assuming it works how you want it to work, as another one of your sulky tantrums really would be just too boring.
Sorry, I was laughing so hard at your indignant bleating I missed a part of your selective reading of events:
"...,He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself.
A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer
Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours....."
The problem is that is almost completely untrue or a mass of assumptions based on what you want to baaaaah-lieve. Indeed, you sheeple need to get your stories straight as you're beginning to contradict yourselves (http://liberalburblings.co.uk/2013/08/details-of-legal-representation-allowed-to-david-miranda-at-heathrow/). Let's look at your points one at a time.
"...,He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself...." This is part untruth and part procedure. He was allowed the solicitor of his choice as shown by the fact that Gavin Kendall of Bindmans was able to attend as Miranda's representative. Mr Kendall was not refused access and not told he could not be Miranda's lawyer, nor was Miranda told he had to take a police duty solicitor or nothing, so your first point is a complete fabrication. It is also procedure not to let a suspect contact anyone they like when under questioning to avoid them warning off a fellow suspect or getting an accomplice to dispose of evidence. So that first set of statements can be completely debunked straightaway.
"....A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer...." The police officer that called Greenwald gave him his warrant number, which is his unique legal identifier. In Yank terms it is equivalent to a detective's shield number. This shows the officer was not trying to hide his identity as you imply. They also called Greenwald as Miranda requested they do so to provide him a lawyer. This choice of Greenwald by Miranda was understandable as Miranda was unlikely to have known any solicitors to call in the UK, but it was Miranda's choice of Greenwald that delayed him receiving legal representation, not any interference by the police. And the police did not say Miranda could not have a lawyer, that is patently male bovine manure, as the first thing Greenwald did was call up the UK Guardian office who then called Bindmans via their Bindmans rep Kate Goold.
"....Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours....." Kendall initially wasted time trying to contact Miranda by phone. This was simply stupid - there was no way the police would let someone under Schedule 7 detention talk to anyone on the phone as the they would be unable to verify that the person on the phone was not an accomplice. So Miranda had to wait for Kendall to get his lazy ass down to Heathrow. Given that Bindmans are London based this could have taken a few hours in itself. The fun gets better - Kendall does not appear on the Bindmans website as a member of their solicitors team (http://www.bindmans.com/our-people/lawyers). Given that it all happened on a Sunday, I suspect what happened was Goold sent out their duty solicitor, probably a contract solicitor, and not the type of legal challenger Greenwald assumes he would get. So instead of someone more qualified (like Gwendoline Morgan, who represented for Mr Miranda's failed injunction attempt, or Bindmans' Head Of Police Misconduct, Chez Cotton), Miranda got what seems to be the inept substitute. That seems to have been a failure of Bindmans causing, not the police. It gets even better. As I understand it, for a duty solicitor to attend they need to be on the Police Station Register so they can bypass such checks as are required to ensure they are an actual solicitor. It seems Mr Kendall was down as representing McCormacks, not Bindmans (according to the registration in 2005 http://www.criminalsolicitor.net/forum/uploads/DaveyB/files/2005-02-17_065653_PS_Attendances_-_Consultation_Response.pdf), so it was inevitable that he would have to wait whilst being checked, which on Sunday would probably not be a quick process. Again, it looks like another blunder by Bindmans, who seem to be either incompetent or not really putting much value in the Guardian contract, IMHO. Whatever the reason for the delays, Kendall was eventually allowed access to Miranda as his legal representative.
So, IMHO, all the delays you assume were down to police skulduggery actually seem to be due to lack of preparation on Greenwald's part (considering the task he gave Miranda, why didn't he predict UK interference and at least give him the contact number for Bindmans in advance?) and what appears to be a sloppy service from Bindmans. Enjoy!
Yeah, feel free to just skip over that sort of moral argument Matt, its does seem that morals, along with politeness and any form of self examination are not your forte.
How is it "Wrong" . I did explain that to you, in minute detail. But basically, if lots of people complain that it is wrong, then , normally, it's wrong. When the people who framed the law say its use was wrong, then, normally, it was wrong.
And you know what happens if you abuse these things too much? They get removed or toned down, and then you lose the ability to use the law for what it was intended for in the first place. Kind of a lose-lose all round.
Unfortunately true that just because I want something to happen it's not necessarily the case that it will.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean I am going to stop complaining about this sort of shit, or stuff will certainly never get changed.
Multiple MPs have queried the legality of the use of this Law, Keith Vaz, David Davis, Nick Clegg, Yvette Cooper to name a few. They are from all 3 main parties.
The fact is however that the choice of targets is obviously a suppressing effect , misusing laws against people already unpopular with the government is normally a sure fire win politically, unless popular complaint makes it a big enough issue, or people in the government fear the law will be abused against them.
Also the default position for an MP is the party line. In this case, Labour voted in the law, and don't want to look too dumb for putting it in place, and the Tories abused the law, so their position is "it's fine".
The Lib Dems are putting in a bill to limit schedule 7 powers however.
You appear to have ignored the fact that my argument has consistently been that they should have used appropriate laws, like the OSA, but chose not too because those don't allow for forced questioning.
It appears to be the main point of this stop in the first place as they a) didn't arrest him b) Weren't somehow magically going to get the only copy of the secret documents in existence off of him.
You assertion that I think they (Miranda/Greenwald/Poitras) are in the right and have done nothing wrong: Well to some extent - they haven't even been charged with anything (yet), never mind convicted , so on the face of it why would you say they have Matt?
Has the little judge and jury inside of you already decided the sentence?
What will you do if they never get charged, or get proven innocent?
Has your position now moved to acknowledge that things can be "wrong" without being technically illegal?
What about the spying on the embassies, UN and stuff Matt? Illegal under international law and treaty, but of course it's fine because they are spies, and everyone is doing it. Would you say that's Illegal but not "Wrong"?
Or are you only concerned with criminals below a certain defined level of power?
So about that OSA,
Which sections do you think apply to David?
Sections 1-4 apply only to government employees/contractors and people who have been told they are subject to the act.
Section 5 applies to everyone providing the following is not true
(4)A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
(a)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
(b)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,
unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.
So, unless David has dual nationality or handed over documents in the UK or associated crown territory, section 5 does not apply, he isn't an employee of the Guardian and is only handing documents over to Greenwald or Poitras, so the publication of the documents isn't directly connected to him.
Section 6 applies to people in general "disclosing" documents without authority , for damaging purposes.
Assuming that David was intending to disclose those documents to Greenwald for "Damaging purposes", you might have a case if they hadn't taken all these documents off of him before letting him go. There is no "Intent" or "plans to" wording, so the fact he would have would not come into it. This would also negate any use of section 5.
Section 7 deals with forcing people to return documents when ordered to do so, and giving away official government passwords and such that would allow unauthorized access to secret data.
Ok, so maybe he admitted to previously muling documents of this nature (i.e specifically covered by the UK OSA ), in which case, they could have arrested him (but didn't). Might have a hard time making that stick if your questioning isn't subject to Miranda rights and intended only for anti-terrorism however, and all you have to go on is his confession. If they actually had evidence of previous applicable document muling, then arrest would have been the obvious choice surely?
I can imagine that the government does want to change the OSA to include words like "intends" and "plans" however, they have stated their intention to tighten up the OSA. It might even move into the digital age.
With regards to the "Lawyer Attendance issue" you show exactly part of one document, (maybe two if you include a solicitors register from 8 years ago). You could of course take a full look at the letter in question http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/759779/miranda-protocol-letter.txt for those of you watching at home.
None of those indicate that David was allowed a lawyer of his choice. The fact that one turned up would be hard to ignore once the diplomatic and legal thumbscrews come on.
Also, crucially, Schedule 8 doesn't allow for a lawyer, unless they take you to a police station or a place designated for questioning for section 41 (not schedule 7). Presumably because this law was intended for questions to be asked near the departure gates without people insisting on lawyers for a 5 minute question and answer session.
But lets assume your assertion is correct and ,despite the actual wording of schedule 8, David asked for his lawyer straight away and was allowed it, and Greenwald was just lying about being told to not bother.
So, in this situation, someone as well connected as he is can't get a lawyer there for 8 out of 9 hours of the questioning, and the maximum is 9 hours, and according to you this is only to be expected on a Sunday, with the Airport being so far away etc.
During which he has to answer questions (on apparently any subject) or be arrested for non-cooperation. So, that sounds like a well written law with good built-in legal protections, right? OK, even if you were at a police station, access to a lawyer can be delayed anyway upon someone of sufficient rank giving one of a list of reasons, the only requirement for which is that reason be recorded, but still allows the "must answer" questioning.
This law is just a terrible bit of legislation. Either people should be able to request a lawyer, after which questioning stops (but so does the 9 hour timer until the lawyer arrives), or they should not have to be compelled to answer questions. Sure people can insist on a lawyer as they wait for their flight if they wish, but then they will miss it, so the vast majority of people won't do that.
I'm also a bit hazy on how threatening a few months in prison is going to be much of a deterrent to a dedicated terrorist who just has to lie or clam up for a few hours to successfully pull off his (presumably) imminent attack.
Still , it is apparently fruitless to point out how badly written and subject to abuse a law is to you Matt.
From your point of view, the more badly written and broadly applicable a law is, the better it is for the police, so that's ok! The ability to stop anyone, for no reason , and then interrogate them on any subject without a lawyer present (unless you graciously allow the fastest of lawyers to attend the closing moments), and threaten them with prison unless they "co-operate" is a police officers wet dream. Well. that's probably a little tame for a police officers wet dream, I suspect it would also include the ability to beat answers out of suspects and then shoot them on the spot if they looked guilty.
"....feel free to just skip over that sort of moral argument...." So, having lost all the legal arguments, having run out of dubious half-truths, and having had all your "factual" points thoroughly debunked, you retreat to the fact-free "moral" argument, the last stand of the discredited.
"....But basically, if lots of people complain that it is wrong, then , normally, it's wrong...." You mean just because you noisy 0.099% think you're right the rest of us should just go with what you say? Sorry, think again. TBH, get over yourself.
"....Keith Vaz, David Davis, Nick Clegg, Yvette Cooper...." AKA, Keith-Rentaquote-Vaz, David Not-fair-I-want-to-be-the-Tory-leader Davis, Nick No-I-want-to-be-the-Tory-leader-more-than-Davis Clegg, and Yvette We-couldn't-get-hold-of-Vaz Cooper? Wow, with those kinds of shining examples of heroism, you're a sure-fire for success - not. I'm quite comfortable in predicting the next election will be fought over real issues such as the economy, and not bleating points.
"....You appear to have ignored the fact that my argument has consistently been that they should have used appropriate laws, like the OSA, but chose not too because those don't allow for forced questioning....." You are ignoring the fact it matters not one jot. They could have stopped him under a Schedule 7 and - if they found half-a-kilo of coke up his rectum - still charged him with possession of drugs. The police do not have to ignore evidence of a crime that is different from the initial reason for a stop and search, be it an ordinary stop and search on the street or a Schedule 7. And, as already discussed, and completely ignored by you, it could be argued that the secrets would be of use to terrorists, therefore the original Schedule 7 stop was applicable. Keep denying it until you are blue in the face, it was all completely legal and very unlikely to change. Enjoy!
"....Well to some extent - they haven't even been charged with anything (yet), never mind convicted , so on the face of it why would you say they have Matt?...." Greenwald has in his possession secret material covered by the OSA, and whilst you may be so blind as to think he has done nothing wrong, it speaks volumes that Greenwald was too scared to go see Poitras himelf. Obviously he doesn't share your conviction that he wouldn't be arrested.
"....Has the little judge and jury inside of you already decided the sentence?...." It was you that was insisting they had not broken any laws despite it not going to court. I am pointing out that there are numerous articels on the Web from respected news sources (with legal teams, not bleating sheeple bloggers), that have pointed out that the stop was completely legal, and that Miranda was in breach of the OSA if he did have classified documents relating to GCHQ in his possession. Maybe you should try reading more than just IndyMedia?
"....What will you do if they never get charged, or get proven innocent?...." Well, seeing as the police are preparing a case, it looks like charges will be presented at least against Miranda shortly. At that point it will get interesting as Miranda is unlikely to volunteer to leave Brazil and return to the UK to face prosecution, so whilst he may never be convicted he will never be proven innocent, and will always be a fugitive from justice. Should the police find evidence in his data linking Patrois and Greenwald to the stolen docs then it gets real interesting - Greenwald spouting of about GCHQ is one thing, but Greenwald definitively linked to evidence is another matter. Again, Greenwald might not care too much from his Rio hideaway, but Poitras is in Europe and therefore vulnerable to an European arrest warrant. Whilst Merkel may be playing for votes in an election year, I doubt if she'll be willing to deny an extradition to the UK. But I bet you didn't want to consider any of that.
"....What about the spying on the embassies, UN and stuff Matt?...." Shall we wait to see if a case ever gets presented in any court? You know, with actual evidence presented. What was that about making yourself judge and jury? LOL, try again, lambikins.
".....So, unless David has dual nationality or handed over documents in the UK or associated crown territory, section 5 does not apply, he isn't an employee of the Guardian and is only handing documents over to Greenwald or Poitras, so the publication of the documents isn't directly connected to him...." All complete cobblers - he just has top be in possession of the material, full stop. And his couriering them between Poitras and Greenwald is definitely aiding in their illegal publication, so you fail again. The rest of your laughable attempt at rewriting the OSA is simply too stupid for words, but I have submitted it to the Plain English Campaign as an extreme case of complete gobbleydegook masquerading as an argument.
"....you might have a case if they hadn't taken all these documents off of him before letting him go...." That's like saying the police can't possibly re-arrest someone just because they had to release them before all the evidence was tested. Imagine if the police caught a known drug-dealer with a bag of pills, but couldn't get the lab results back on the pills before having to release him. By your argument, should the lab results later come back saying the tablets are Ecstacy the coppers would not be allowed to re-arrest and charge the dealer - what complete and utters bollocks! Please say you work in teh legal profession, for Bindmans maybe, and that you will be representing that other complete tosser Assange soon?
"....you show exactly part of one document...." Documents that prove my points. And you showed none at all. Face it, you lost again, Miranda got the lawyer of his arrangement if not personal choice (he delegated the choice to Greenwald). All your hairsplitting and denial does not change that simple fact, and does not stop me exposing the lie you continue to make when you claim the police did not let him have a lawyer.
"....The fact that one turned up would be hard to ignore once the diplomatic and legal thumbscrews come on...." What complete bollocks! Kendall was taken to Miranda within 40 minutes of having turned up unannounced and without the correct documentation, and "diplomatic and legal thumbscrews" had nothing to do with it. The Brazillians had been told politely and correctly of the legal matter and told to go through diplomatic channels (AKA, "go get stuffed"), and were busy sulking and huffing ineffectually, not even knowing who Kendall was! And Kendall's hilariously lackadaisical progress to Heathrow makes me wonder if Bindmans had employed thumbscrews upong themselves! ROFLMAO!
"....So, in this situation, someone as well connected as he is can't get a lawyer there for 8 out of 9 hours of the questioning, and the maximum is 9 hours, and according to you this is only to be expected on a Sunday, with the Airport being so far away etc...." That is what the facts show, and all you have are wild accusations and no facts to back up your bleatings. Fail! In fact, your whole diatribe and all your posts are simply fail throughout. At least you're consistant.
@ Matt Bryant
That all reads as pretty frothy from here.
> The police can stop you under any pretence they like ...
And you don't see any problem with that? Very illuminating.
The Official Secrets Act 1989, with which I am quite familiar, is online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/contents. The only offence which Mr Miranda might have been suspected of would be under S.9:
Where a person has in his possession or under his control any document or other article which it would be an offence under section 6 above for him to disclose without lawful authority, he is guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with an official direction for its return or disposal.
The "official direction for its return or disposal" would seem to have to come first.
As for your folk-wisdom "ignorance is no defence", there are several defences based on not knowing what is in a document written into the plain language of the Act.
Anyway, none of this is remotely terrorism related, and you won't convince me otherwise.
"That all reads as pretty frothy from here...." Well, for some reason you sheeple seem to believe that anyone that might disagree with just has to be in a frothing rage, rather than the reality in that we're laughing at your gullibility. Like I said, if it helps you cope with reality then think what you like.
"....And you don't see any problem with that? Very illuminating....." Actually I don't have a problem with that, but then that's probably because I haven't been spoonfed a diet of anti-police propaganda. It probably helps that I not only know coppers but have family that are coppers, so I have actually talked to them. Which is probably a lot more real experience of the police than your feverish paranoid delusions provide. It's also very illuminating that you assume it is "terrible" that the police should be able to stop and search suspects, but then I'm betting your "belief" is like other religions - based on blind faith in fairytales rather than actual factual events.
"....The only offence which Mr Miranda might have been suspected of would be under S.9...." So you can find the actual law, you just can't see how it was applied. Having ANY material relating to GCHQ work NOT officially released by the UK authorities in your possession puts you in breach of the OSA and liable for arrest should you be in the UK. ALL the material leaked by Snowden relating to GCHQ has NOT been officially released and so Miranda having any copies of it would put him in breach of the OSA. Sorry, did I use too many long words, would you like me draw a diagram in crayon for you?
"....Anyway, none of this is remotely terrorism related, and you won't convince me otherwise." Yes, it is very obvious that trying to explain facts is simply a waste of time with you, you are determined to baaaaaaaaah-lieve.
One word: steganography.
Lots of photos of cats, or anything that wouldn't look out of place on the public internet. It could probably be done in youtube videos of cats, or teenagers screencasting their games of Minecraft, or other mundane nonsense.
Encryption is normally too obvious, especially if being sent physically via someone on some NSA watchlist.
lords and masters, a quote from the BBC website
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security.
"If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."
Simple if you disagree with that statement you support terrorism
"If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."
If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would embarass the government, then they should act and the law provides them with a fig-leaf to harass and intimidate whistle-blowers. Those who support this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.
I would love to believe that the whole Miranda affair was a successful coat-trailing exercise. There seems to be no particular reason why he should carry Snowden-related documents on his laptop, especially if flying via London. It's probably not an accident that the Guardian acceded to the disk-destruction demands of GCHQ on the same day.
If I was Mr Miranda, I would have refused to hand over the passwords and done a little porridge. The reputational damage & international pressure it would have caused to/on the U.K, would have been just what is needed to help bring more focus to the horrible situation we have going on with our 'friends' across the pond.
So the lickspittle British Government is still as eager to kowtow to the Americans as they were during the time depicted in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" then? How depressing.
Christ, I thought the new mob would have grown some balls in the aftermath of Blair's dismissal.
You know, it occurs to me that The Old Country could reclaim the moral high ground here and become a model for what the United States claims it is all about in that 237 year old document they revere so highly.
How does the old saw go: "Looked good on paper..."
Seems to me the only way to outwit these security idiots and the (secret Police) is to publish the remaining documents on Piratebay and other sites , which would then allow the spreading of the documents without focussing on one person, they cant lock everyone up. As to the statement that the Americans didn't request it , just remember that in GCHQ Cheltenham at which there are two sites, the Americans reside in the site, they work along side and with our services, that I can confirm, so anything you hear about who authorised what, is just a cover for a joint operation. the one good thing that may come out of this ,might be that in future other methods may be employed to distribute information of interest to the public without risking arrest or persecution, so lets hope we hear about the rest of the revelations that effect us all , and hold this, and any future government to account
That was the day I finally lost all faith in any idea of the the British police being there to protect us. That the Met Chief constable (Blair? Blaine? I forget) would not resign then did away with the last vestiges of my belief in their decency. Resign? He should have been sacked.
Excuse my bad language, but what a bunch of arseholes. Detaining someone in transit without there being a warrant for them and then taking all their valuables?! Their government doesn't even have the spine to stand up and talk about what they did citing "police operation matters" - that's a load of crap. There were ministerial and diplomatic briefings, this wasn't a "drag a suspicious person aside for a check", this was calculated and premeditated. I'm sorry to say, but I hope British get the same treatment elsewhere in the world - we'll have zero sympathy (other than for the victim, unless it's a politician or government employee).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022