Partner of Guardian's Snowden Reporter Detained Under Terrorism Act

hydrofix writes "The partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA), was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through the Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. David Miranda was stopped by officers and informed that he would be questioned under the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. 'This is a profound attack on press freedoms [...] to detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ,' Greenwald commented."

Comments

Update the constitution

[fey000]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

Re:Update the constitution

[compro01]

In this case, you need to create a (written and involved to amend) constitution.

Re:Update the constitution

[the eric conspiracy]

You also need a vigilant citizenry.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is the UK, it's the Magna Carta that needs to be revised.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

There are no conditions whatsoever. No one should use Land of the Free to refer to the US of A even in a restricted fashion anymore.
It is a fascist country. They only pretend to not be one.

Re:Update the constitution

[AxeTheMax]

It can be revised all you like but it won't do any good if you have a corrupt police (secret service?) who know their job is to protect their masters in Westminster and Washington.

Re:Update the constitution

[currently_awake]

There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them, there should be a legal limit on taking their stuff without charging them. Without a time limit, it's just theft.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Update the constitution (Score:2) by fey000 (1374173) Alter Relationship on 2013-08-18 16:10 (#44602353) Land of the Free(*). *Conditions may apply.

I've never heard the UK called the "Land of the Free". Normally people use that term for the US, which has a constitution, unlike the UK, but it doesn't say anything about being free.

Re:Update the constitution

[sumdumass]

What does the USA have to do with this. This happened in the UK by UK agents using a UK law that was written pre 9/11.

Re:Update the constitution

[Arrogant Monkey]

AC is American, and assumes all others are.

Re:Update the constitution

[MichaelSmith]

Update the constitution (Score:2)
by fey000 (1374173) Alter Relationship on 2013-08-18 16:10 (#44602353)

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

I've never heard the UK called the "Land of the Free..

Yeah its the Queen's backyard and supply of labour. I have a copy of the Australian constitution right here and thats pretty much what it says.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The implicit assumption is that they detained him for reasons related to Greenwald's publication of US secret documents. Considering the close relationship between the intelligence communties of the two countries, that seems likely.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"Land of the free" is like "Religion of peace". They've been parodic statements for a long time.

Re:Update the constitution

[Spottywot]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

Yup this is the UK where we have a general belief that some freedom would be quite nice, but in reality our democracy is a bit half arsed due to trying to keep the spoiled bastards called Royalty happy, and no constitution of any kind that would let us call ourselves the 'land of the free'. No-one can really be bothered to get angry about our freedoms being constantly erroded because most of the mainstream media are already aware of the giant boot stamping on our faces and know that if they report about it then it will stamp on their faces a bit more if they do. This article is a case in point.

On the subject of 1984 people often don't realise that the book wasn't George Orwells vision of the future, it was his view of Britain at that time i.e 1948, he just reversed the last two numbers of the year.

Re:Update the constitution

[Teun]

Please realise this is a country where they can and will detain you for not handing over the key for encrypted data.

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, he was detained for leaking information against the NSA, a U.S. agency. That is what the U.S. has to do with this.

Re:Update the constitution

[mspohr]

It is well known that the UK is a lap dog of the US so I'm sure they did this at the bidding of Obama.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

With a time limit, it's a time-limited theft where you know the time by which you'll know that your belongings were "mistakenly destroyed" or something.

Re:Update the constitution

[dkleinsc]

However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. There's definitely an issue of how legal this all was, given that:
1. There was no suspicion that Mr Miranda committed a crime, which brings up Article 5.
2. The only reason to seize Mr Miranda's electronic devices was to search them, again with no reason to believe that they were used for a crime, violating Article 8.
3. The reason they picked Mr Miranda was because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, violating Article 11.
4. And what Glenn Greenwald did was covered under Article 10.

So yeah, Land of the Free, unless you embarrass important people or organizations in the US or UK or NATO.

Re:Update the constitution

[EmagGeek]

At least in the US, there is no limit to civil forfeiture. If authorities think that your possessions were used in a crime, they can take them even if you are never charged with a crime at all. This includes personal effects, possessions, and real property.

Re:Update the constitution

[IamTheRealMike]

Please realise this is a country where they can and will detain you for not handing over the key for encrypted data.

Yes indeed ..... sounds a lot like LavaBit doesn't it?

Re:Update the constitution

[SuricouRaven]

Used in a crime, or proceeds of a crime. Fodder for the police auction. Cars are most common, if someone drives to the site of a crime or to visit their drug dealer.

Re: Update the constitution

[IamTheRealMike]

He also leaked documents about GCHQ, including some quite embarrassing ones (or hopefully quite embarrassing ones) that showed GCHQ was basically being partially funded by the NSA and acted almost as a subcontractor to them. The fact that one countries signals intelligence agency might be paid for by a different one is quite amazing and their attitude of "we've gotta make sure we deliver the Americans the goods" absolutely scandalous.

No, the British government has plenty of reasons of its own to try and kick Greenwald. Unfortunately Parliament has been much sleepier than Congress when it comes to GCHQ abuses. Hague lied in front of MPs and the entire country, and just like Clapper nothing has been done about it. Unfortunately the British Parliament doesn't seem to have an equivalent of Amash right now, so it may well be that the issue simply dies there in deafening silence. MP's are all too intimidated by the intelligence agencies to do anything about it, and sadly they have a long track record of illegal surveillance that started long before 9/11 (dating from the time of the battles against the IRA). Although Congress routinely wipes its ass with the constitution, at least it gives Americans a rallying point and something concrete to get upset over. The lack of one in the UK means it's easier for the government to walk over basic principles.

Re: Update the constitution

[Rougement]

Did the governments of Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc act independently when they forced the Bolivian President's jet to land?

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

No it wasn't. Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.

Re:Update the constitution

[Mitreya]

There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them,

Not a lot of legal limits -- apparently when detained thusly one is not entitled to a lawyer or to being silent.

Re: Update the constitution

[xaxa]

Although Congress routinely wipes its ass with the constitution, at least it gives Americans a rallying point and something concrete to get upset over. The lack of one in the UK means it's easier for the government to walk over basic principles.

We could rally round the Human Rights Act / ECHR, but somehow the mainstream media (and the Tories) have convinced lots of people that it's a bad thing.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the USA have to do with this. This happened in the UK by UK agents using a UK law that was written pre 9/11.

You are joking right? If he had been detained for an hour or less I could see your point, but the length of time he was held can only mean one of two things, either they are so completely ignorant that they have absolutely no idea who is a threat and who isn't while simultaneously so useless that they couldn't figure it out and had to hold him for 9 hours OR more likely, they were instructed to hold him by their boss, who was told by his boss, and he by his, and so forth all they way up the ladder to some dick who knew exactly who he was and wanted to send a message as a favor for some friends in Washington.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Partner of Greenwald held by cops under terrorism laws. Greenwald reporting on UK and US agencies from US source Ed Snowden. Ed Snowden under indictment in the US but escapes to Russia. US security agencies originally set up by UK security agencies during WWII. Do you see a connection now?

Re:Update the constitution

[Cartotype]

Could you word your requests a bit more carefully? I don't want to see a new law come into effect that says "If an agent takes more than four articles of stuff from an innocent civilian, the agent must charge the civilian a 'processing fee' of $100 per item."

Bad enough your stuff can be appropriated, but putting a limit on how much stuff can be taken before you start getting charges? Eugh!

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

"Land of the free" only if you are a sheeple citizen who focuses only on kardashians, american idol, mcdonalds, football, and your low wage job as a slave at wal-mart and believe fox news, cnn, abc and nbc are all true and would never lie to you.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, it has always been "Land of the fearful". Only when realizing that can wounds start to heal.
Those who lived the land before were the bold and wise ones.

Captcha: restart

Re:Update the constitution

[Ol Olsoc]

What does the USA have to do with this. This happened in the UK by UK agents using a UK law that was written pre 9/11.

New around here aren't you? In slashdot world, all problems are the direct fault of the United States.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you need a lawyer to explain that the US-Constitution does only apply inside the US, and the article is about the UK?

Re:Update the constitution

[sumdumass]

Oh, so it's some massive conspiracy that the facts for proof exist only in your mind.

I don't doubt him being connected to a report who printing about the crap snowden released, but it still is the UK.

Re:Update the constitution

[Cederic]

The Magna Carta's been revised continually since it was written - to the extent that almost none of it is currently in law.

The UK does however have a constitution, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a fucking awful addendum to it.

Re:Update the constitution

[Teun]

No, the LavaBit thing is very hush-hush and relies on secret powers, the Brits wrote it into law.

Re:Update the constitution

[JaredOfEuropa]

Our country (NL) soon to follow suit, if the justice minister has his way. Drugs, kiddie porn and terrorism are the biggest threats to the free west. Not for any harm these three things may cause our society to suffer, but because of the harm we permit our rulers to inflict on our rights, in the name of the war against these threats.

Re:Update the constitution

[newcastlejon]

Don't forget the City of London. It's like Mos Eisley, except with glass and steel in place of sand and mud.

Re:Update the constitution

[Maintenance Goof]

My points just disappeared or you would have had an informative bump. Anti-terrorism should not resemble terrorism.

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"that showed GCHQ was basically being partially funded by the NSA"

Which, again, involves the U.S.

Thanks for making the point.

Re:Update the constitution

[Crudely_Indecent]

held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through the Heathrow airport

Wrong country

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Miranda is clearly not a terrorist yet they use authority gained under the "Prevention of Terrorism Act" to justify their actions. These same people are telling us not to worry about NSA & GCHQ snooping because they only use those tools against terrorists.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIPA act in the UK can put people away for life:

Judge: What is the encryption key:
Defendant: Sorry, no dice.
Judge: That's another three years. What is the encryption key?
Defendant: Nope.
Judge: Another three years in the Crown's finest. Now really. The encryption key?

So, even though it might be considered three years, its real usage can cause someone to get a life sentence without an actual trial happening.

Re:Update the constitution

[TapeCutter]

US security agencies originally set up by UK security agencies during WWII

Not really, the brits had spies in the Nazi party that were planted as teenagers from Cambridge decades earlier. Also google the history of "Betchly Park", it's very closely related to early computers and played a pivotal (and until fairly recently, top secret) role in the outcome of WW2. Betchly was the granddaddy of the modern UK/US secret service. The UK agencies taught the US agencies how to decode German messages, together they used this knowledge to sink the German submarine fleet, later the same methods were used to crack Japanese codes and (for example) set up the naval ambush at the battle of midway. After the war the two nations managed to keep their code breaking secrets to themselves until the 60's when allies and enemies alike realised they had been getting dressed in front of an open window.

The two spy agencies shared the talent of men like Turing to defeat a common enemy. Signals intelligence was born and they have been tucked up in bed together ever since. Over the last few decades they have expanded their club to include rock solid allies such as Australia and Canada.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all malware is made by terrorists. While Norton does use fear to further their goals, I don't think Quicktime, Adobe Reader, and Windows 8 are acts of terrorism. More like tyranny. Like Mr. Miranda's detention, they may be cowardly acts of asymmetrical warfare, but unlike Mr. Miranda's detention I don't think they are intended to put fear into those who would like their governing bodies to follow the rules of law. I will agree that major software companies just like our governmental leaders, often hate us for our freedom.

Re:Update the constitution

[niftymitch]

However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. ....snip....

This was the UK and the rules in the UK are not the rules where I am.

The single most obvious problem was the loss of property.

For many of us the contents of our portable devices are how we make a living. Their loss is not just a casualty loss but an arbitrary tax on an individual and in some cases on an employer.

I can ill afford to have my digital life stolen. And I can ill afford to have large capacity cloud storage that can also be stolen and taken off line with a FISA letter.

Given the length of time this individual was detained copies of his devices could be made. Based on that there is no reason I can see to not return them.

SUMMARY: grand theft.

Re: Update the constitution

[Spottywot]

No it wasn't. Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.

Partly correct,

In his essay Why I Write, Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". [1] Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism and potential totalitarianism.

Also partly incorrect

His work for the overseas service of the BBC, which at the time was under the control of the Ministry of Information, also played a significant role as the basis for his Ministry of Truth (as he later admitted to Malcolm Muggeridge). The Ministry of Information building, Senate House (University of London), was the Ministry of Truth's architectural inspiration. The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four also reflects various aspects of the social and political life of both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he viewed as the situation in the United Kingdom in 1948, when the British economy was poor, the British Empire was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs, and wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy'). In many ways, Oceania is indeed a future metamorphosis of the British Empire (although Orwell is careful to state that, geographically, it also includes the United States, and that the currency is the dollar). It is, as its name suggests, an essentially naval power. Much of its militarism is focused on veneration for sailors and seafarers, serving on board "floating fortresses" which Orwell evidently conceived of as the next stage in the growth of ever-bigger warships, after the Dreadnoughts of WWI and the aircraft carriers of WWII; and much of the fighting conducted by Oceania's troops takes place in defense of India (the "Jewel in the Crown" of the British Empire). The party newspaper is the times, identified in Orwell's time (and to some degree even at present) as the voice of the British ruling class — rather than, as could have been expected, a publication which started life as the paper of a revolutionary party (like Pravda in the Soviet Union). Note the lack of capital letters in the name. This is a feature of newspeak, the official party language. O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman).

source for both quotes http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was your chosen one Obama that said that. I read it in one of his books.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

They killed the Beatles / Lennin for less. This is actually an improvement. But its ghastly. And one of our elite leadership or rich folk (Murdoch, a Senator, Obama) would likely NEVER be scrutinized like this publicly (I'm sure they privately get their asses reamed by thugs).

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

New around here aren't you? In slashdot world, all problems are the direct fault of the United States.

Not really. Certainly more than zero of the world's problems, but that hardly means all of them.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be revised all you like but it won't do any good if you have a corrupt police (secret service?) who know their job is to protect their masters in Westminster and Washington.

You mean like the constitution of the USA, which president Bush openly condemned as just a piece of paper?

And now this incredibly stupid lie gets modded up.

You lefties wonder why the righties think you are stupid, and you support dumb comments like this.

Find me the quote in a news report from a person who was there when it was said. Otherwise you guys are simply idiots who hated Bush and support any lie said about him. You aren't an idiot for hating Bush, you are an idiot for being so easily manipulated, while thinking you are intelligent and knowledgeable.

Captcha: Idolatry. How appropriate.

Re:Update the constitution

[Capsaicin]

In this case, you need to create a (written and involved to amend) constitution.

Ah, but who needs a written constitution when you are protected by golden threads?

Re:Update the constitution

[DrVomact]

...On the subject of 1984 people often don't realise that the book wasn't George Orwells vision of the future, it was his view of Britain at that time i.e 1948, he just reversed the last two numbers of the year.

How enlightening; I'm afraid I was among the ignorant before reading your insightful contribution. I didn't realize that Britain has really been "Airstrip One", a forward base of Oceania, since 1948. Presumably the United States hasn't existed since then either, because it's part of Oceania, and we've been engaged in perpetual warfare with two mega-states called Eastasia and Eurasia all along. Damn, how could my attention have slipped so much. Or maybe your post is just thoughtless twaddle.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

It's hard to laugh at your snarkiness when you get the country wrong.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Mos Eisley is a suburb of Brumingham. It's got absolutely nothing in common with the city of London.

Re:Update the constitution

[Spottywot]

If you don't know how not to take things absolutely literally you probably should be reading fiction at all. On the subject there is a great book of his about some farm animals who think they should walk on two legs, I look forward to your essay on that one.

Re: Update the constitution

[Capsaicin]

Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.

Orwell never fought for the actual Communists (i.e. the Russian aligned Communist Party), he fought for the POUM (which was a Trotskyist group). The exigencies of Russian foreign policy (Stalin wanted an anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France) caused the Communists to be the conservatives on the Republican side. For example, everywhere the Communists (as opposed to various Trotskyist and Anarchist groupings) gained control, factories which had spontaneously been "collectivised" by their work force were returned to the hands of the prior private owners.

The musn't upset bourgeois Britain and France line (the vanity of which reached it's denouement at the Munich conference) being pursued, at Stalin's behest, by the Communists in Spain was natural perceived by more radical leftists as a gross betrayal. Orwell saw it as such. Orwell too perceived the danger of the requirements of State taking precedence over the liberation of workers. I'm not sure how you think he was being "delusional?!" Disillusioned perhaps, but then he obviously didn't hold the Communists in high enough regard to fight with them in the first place.

I recommend reading his Homage to Catalonia, not only because it clarifies the meaning of works such as Animal Farm and 1984, but because it's a damn good read.

Re:Update the constitution

[the eric conspiracy]

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (âoeCAFRAâ). This requires the government to procure an ex parte warrant from a U.S. District Court upon probable cause before seizing property. Within 60 days after the government seizes property, it must send written notice of the seizure to parties interested in the property (i.e., the owner). The interested parties then have 35 days to file a claim for the property. If a timely claim is filed, government has 90 days to either indict the claimant or bring a lawsuit in federal court seeking a judgment of civil forfeiture of the property. If the government does neither, it must return the seized property forthwith.

Re:Update the constitution

[Dahamma]

Except the "UK Constitution" is about as coherent a legal concept as the US patent system...

Re:Update the constitution

[Mitchell314]

Woosh

Re:Update the constitution

[Ol Olsoc]

New around here aren't you? In slashdot world, all problems are the direct fault of the United States.

Not really. Certainly more than zero of the world's problems, but that hardly means all of them.

But isn't it strange? an article about Great Britain, and the second post immediately calls the US of A not the land of the free any more. And although my first post has been modified as a "Troll", what I wrote was very true. That's the course of so many topics here. Perhaps someone thought I was being straightforward, I don't knowm but every time something happens in the world, in a few posts, the conversation is changed to some malfeasance - real or assumed - by the United States.

Then again, it is not surprising given that USHaters get mod points that anything not blaming the USA would be modded as troll. Which I'm sure this one will too.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

And now this incredibly stupid lie gets modded up.

There was an eye witness who stated Bush said that. Bush was asked and did not deny saying it. So, what's the issue? Were you there to confirm it wasn't uttered?

Re:Update the constitution

[AK Marc]

That can happen in the US as well with contempt orders.

Re:Update the constitution

[Kalriath]

Have you not used Quicktime or Adobe Reader recently? Acts of terrorism doesn't even begin to describe the unimaginable terror these programs inflict on their unsuspecting victims.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Quicktime, Adobe Reader, and Windows 8 are acts of terrorism.

Have you actually tried USING Windows 8?

Re: Update the constitution

[DrVomact]

No it wasn't. Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.

Partly correct,

If I ignore the "beeing delusional" part of the quote, there's nothing right about it. (Was Orwell deluded? Disillusioned, perhaps? Who knows.) In any case, the assertion that Orwell "fought for the Communists" is an outright falsehood that cries out for correction. As we know, Orwell fought with POUM, which called itself "Marxist" and socialist. However, POUM was in no way part of the Communist International (that is, the Moscow-controlled Stalinist Communist Party), and was in fact screwed over by the Communists—along with every other Spanish Republican force that was not Communist-controlled. In Homage to Catalonia, Orwell made clear just what he thought of the Stalinist rat-bastards.

In his essay Why I Write, Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". [1] Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism and potential totalitarianism.

Also partly incorrect

Really? The guy seems to be making sense here.

His work for the overseas service of the BBC, which at the time was under the control of the Ministry of Information, also played a significant role as the basis for his Ministry of Truth (as he later admitted to Malcolm Muggeridge). The Ministry of Information building, Senate House (University of London), was the Ministry of Truth's architectural inspiration.

Sure, in Nineteen EIghty Four, Minitrue is the official propaganda organ of the Oceanian state. Any official propaganda...er news organization could serve as a model for Orwell's fictional "truth" factory. Are you saying that Minitrue is the BBC, or that the BBC is no better than Minitrue? What an odd thought.

The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four also reflects various aspects of the social and political life of both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he viewed as the situation in the United Kingdom in 1948, when the British economy was poor, the British Empire was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs, and wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy').

I'm not following you here. You want me to think that Nineteen Eighty Four is in some way like the Britain of 1948? Well yes...in some ways it is, and it some ways it isn't. What's your point? Are you saying that the book is nothing more than some sort of social critique of 1948 Britain? If so, then you're quite wrong, and I'm sure Orwell never meant to say anything of the sort. The society of Nineteen EIghty Four is indeed impoverished, but material impoverishment is the least of it. Orwell addresses the impoverishment and enslavement of the spirit.

In many ways, Oceania is indeed a future metamorphosis of the British Empire (although Orwell is careful to state that, geographically, it also includes the United States, and that the currency is the dollar). It is, as its name suggests, an essentially naval power. Much of its militarism is focused on veneration for sailors and seafarers, serving on board "floating fortresses" which Orwell evidently conceived of as the next stage in the growth of ever-bigger warships, after the Dreadnoughts of WWI and the aircraft ca

Re:Update the constitution

[EuclideanSilence]

The Magna Carta's been revised continually since it was written - to the extent that almost none of it is currently in law.

Man I know how that feels. The US Constitution has no relevance to law anymore either.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Total fail. This was in the UK. RTFA. Doesn't make what happened any better though.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

And now this incredibly stupid lie gets modded up.

There was an eye witness who stated Bush said that.

Name him.

Bush was asked and did not deny saying it.

That's your standard? Refusal to dignify an idiotic claim with a response that wouldn't matter to partisans like you anyway?

So, what's the issue?

Idiots that hate a politician more for "being on the other team", than for the bad policies he instituted. Rah rah, go team whose stated policies I agree with most of the time.

Were you there to confirm it wasn't uttered?

You weren't there to hear it, because it wasn't uttered.

Re:Update the constitution

[shentino]

Quite right. This is the same crap the TSA can get away with on travelers who can't afford to miss a flight on a non refundable plane ticket.

As long as what they're confiscating is worth less than the opportunity cost of missing the flight, people will give up their stuff rather than stay behind.

Re:Update the constitution

[shentino]

When your immediate boss can fire and imprison you all the way up the chain of command, intimidation tends to cascade back down fairly quickly.

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Part III of RIPA clearly states that the maximum prison term is two years, 5 in case of national security.

In one example, a suspect of being child slave trader was sentenced to 4 month (MONTH!).

Not life. And it doesn't stack up.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

For more information about US forfeiture law abuse see this amazing article from The New Yorker last week.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The grounds for the detainment was likely suspicion of violation of the UK Official Secrets Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act). The likely saving grace was that all of the snowden documents that he had on him were encrypted, and could not be discovered before their time limit was up. If they were unencrypted, or they could have gotten the key from him, he would have likely had a longer hold-over.

Re:Update the constitution

[Zemran]

We are talking about the UK whose government are far too busy bending over for the US to care about their more important neighbours with whom they do 75% of their trade. Tony Bliar (AKA The Poodle) is now a multi millionaire thanks to his blind support of G.W. and total disregard for the needs of the UK populace.

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The pomposity of your writing suggests that you are a literature professor ...

Pomposity of his writing? He wrote three not-quite sentences, namely:

Partly correct,

Followed by a lengthy quote, then:

Also partly incorrect

Followed by another lengthy quote. And finally the attribution for the quotes:

source for both quotes http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm

I think you missed something.

Re:Update the constitution

[davester666]

Um, I'm sorry, but this was completely reasonable.

The US gov't is feeling quite terrorized by the publication of top secret documents by Glenn Greenwald, and it's quite reasonable for them to 3 degree's of Bacon on this guys life, and Miranda is only 1 degree away.

Hell, given that he is the partner of Greenwald, all his assets should be seized [beyond the possessions already taken] for supporting terrorism.

Re: Update the constitution

[serviscope_minor]

have convinced lots of people that it's a bad thing.

The ECHR sufferes from exactly the same two problems as the US constitution. Firstly, the government basically ignores it half of the time and secondly the top judges who actually make decisions based on it are completely fucking insane half of the time.

It turns out that no matter how good a law or how well written, it is impossible to stop people from shitting on it.

The problem over here is that the bad decisions clearly at odds with the law are blamed on the law, not the judges. How do Americans consider things? From what I gather there is (rightly) a considerable amount of pride in the constitution itself so the blame tends to land more fairly on the judges.

Not that it makes any difference.

Re: Update the constitution

[mjwx]

No it wasn't. Orwell wrote 1984 after beeing delusional on how the communists behaved during the Spanish civil war, where he inititially fought for the communists.

Partly correct,

In his essay Why I Write, Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". [1] Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism and potential totalitarianism.

Basically Nineteen Eighty-Four was a diatribe against Nazism (National Socialism, state controlled for the benefits of the few with generous lashings of nationalism and jingoism) if England had of slid into Nazism in the same way as Germany did.

Animal Farm was his diatribe against Communism, more precisely Stalinist communism (the use of Trotsky pigs), again he moddled the rise of government in the same way Soviet Russia came about (popular revolution against oppressive authority, leadership struggle where the hard line personalty takes control, becomes more oppressive than the previous authority).

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's the issue?

Idiots that hate a politician more for "being on the other team", than for the bad policies he instituted. Rah rah, go team whose stated policies I agree with most of the time.

There also idiots that accuse you hating a politician more for "being on the other team", than for the bad policies he instituted. Where you in reality hate the politicians for not doing their job and doing only policies that help then ,their friends, their supporters and succumb to lobbies without minding if the policy is bad for their voters because the policies is beneficial for them (this account for more than 99% of the politicians).

Re:Update the constitution

[ImOuttaHere]

... and the irony is that we wouldn't have known to what extent this is true had not someone done their duty by the Geneva Conventions (to which both the USA and the UK are signatories) and exposed the cockroaches who would have us live in continued paranoia and fear. Cockroaches, as you of course realize, can't stand light being shown on them. No. I believe the cockroaches would rather we return to watching NASCAR or distracting ourselves with our electronic devices or buying more guns and ammo to feel better "protected"...

...Anti-terrorism should not resemble terrorism.

Re:Update the constitution

[GrahamCox]

It's "Bletchley", not Betchly.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Magna Carta their equivalent of the US constitution? I'm genuinely interested in learning more about other countries but I think asking here will just lead me to lmgtfy.

Re:Update the constitution

[rtfa-troll]

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusing Slashdot with reality.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a corrupt, incompetent intelligence community.

Re:Update the constitution

[rtfa-troll]

You have a deeply deficient sarcasm detector. I can sell you an upgrade for 15 bitcoins. Please specify your head size and postal address in reply to this post. I will give you an bitcoin address to reply to.

Re: Update the constitution

[Capsaicin]

Spoiler Alert: It occurs to me that I ought to add that the "gross betrayal" experienced by more radical leftists in Spain itself, Anarchists and Trotskyists alike, eventually took a more direct turn than mere annoyance at the Communist's turning back the clock as regard farm and factory collectivisations. The leadership of the POUM in particular did not fare well in the face of Stalin's ire.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a deeply deficient sarcasm detector.

On the contrary, he seems to have detected GP's sarcasm just fine.

Re:Update the constitution

[LQ]

Magna Carta, did she die in vain? But, seriously, this is totally fscking outragous. I have been moved to write to my MP, which doesn't happen very often. Harassing the press through their partners is just not the sort of thing you'd expect in Britain.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so it is OK if the actual laws are kept secret, rather than being publicly stated.

Re:Update the constitution

[Alain Williams]

The US gov't is feeling quite terrorized by the publication of top secret documents by Glenn Greenwald, ....

Did you read the story or do you not realise that Heathrow airport is just outside London, England ?

Having said that I am increasingly concerned that my (English) government is increasingly doing what the USA government wants it to. I have written a letter to my MP complaining about this incident, I wrote to him last August warning about the problems of abuse under the USA Patriot Act.

Re:Update the constitution

[jabuzz]

This is the U.K. where failure to disclose the encryption key when requested is a crime under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, punishable by up to two years in jail. You would have to be as dumb as hell to pass through the U.K. with sensitive "Snowden" documents that are encrypted, when you could deploy PGP and just FTP them.

Re:Update the constitution

[jabuzz]

No, for starters it only applied to the aristocracy. So if you where a Villein, Bordars or other member of the peasant class it did not apply to you. I also suspect that it did not apply to females either...

Re:Update the constitution

[Alain Williams]

Is the Magna Carta their equivalent of the US constitution?

It was an attempt to limit the powers of the King and protect the feudal barons, but also had a trickle down effect to protect the common man. Its influence is felt around the world, including the constitution of the USA. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta.

The original copy is on view just down the road from me in St Albans until 29 August, I must go & see this - friends tell me that it is a good exhibition.

Re:Update the constitution

[znrt]

The UK agencies taught the US agencies how to decode German messages

just as a sidenote, it was the royal navy, actually, who savaged enigma machines and codebooks from subs. prior to that the folks at BP were completely lost, they couldn't crack shit (obviously, because the crypto was actually quite imrpessing for the time) and were considered just a bunch of useless weird nerds by high command. from there on, with something to get started with, taken seriously and with proper funding, they started rolling things out.

there is some pararllelism in looting subs and seizing laptops. both are variations of the $5 wrench attack.

the difference, though, is that the raided subs were commanded by a terrorist and totalitarian state in open war, whereas the stolen laptop was the property of civillians trying to expose terrorist and totalitarian states. see now what has happened to our world?

Re:Update the constitution

[znrt]

and i meant "salvaged" :)

Re:Update the constitution

[MickLinux]

That comes under :

Home of the brave (*)

Re:Update the constitution

[nospam007]

As you know, don't talk to the police, ever!
Laptops and data storage are hopefully encrypted with truecrypt and a very large key, so you just have to wait for the 9 hours they can keep you.
The only drawback is that you can't trust the laptop(s) if you get them back, so you better have a cheap one and sell them on eBay where you'll have a paper trail if some terrorist buys it by any chance.

Re:Update the constitution

[MickLinux]

The Larouche wachos may be right after all; jok's on me: the bankers did have it in for us; the two countries are the same; and the solution is to bleed the country dry by consuming as many gov't services as possible. wow.

Re: Update the constitution

[Paul Jakma]

You really think the BBC is _never_ a truth factory? :)

Re: Update the constitution

[xaxa]

I don't think that's the case. We should be proud that we insisted that evidence gained through torture wasn't used against Abu Qatada, and that we see "human rights" as universal -- not just for British people, not just for those on British soil, but for everyone, everywhere. (So, we can't [shouldn't] have the situation like in the US where the constitution can be ignored in Guantanamo, or for immigrants.)

The media, MPs and ministers should have been blaming Jordan for why the UK was unable to deport him, but instead they blamed the EU. That's backwards!

"The Palestinian-Jordanian cleric's deportation was finally able to proceed after the UK and Jordan signed a treaty agreeing that evidence obtained through torture would not be used against him."

Re:Update the constitution

[Spottywot]

Like the AC said, it's working just fine. I'm just replying in kind.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

We're (Americans) always sorta concerned about America going into marshal law. However, it appears that the entire world is already in a state of marshal law. And if you look around, the bullies are the only ones that are making the world stink of it. Bullies always operate in the same way:

Push others around until they begin to push back. When they push back, suddenly smash as much of them as you can, all the while yelling about how they started it. This is how we are all living - in a world depending on sheeple, in order to have order. The bullies are all prepared for when the people fight back, but only if few people fight back separately, and only a few at a time. If all of the people pushed back at the same time, then all of our problems would be over. It's just like the neighborhood that I live in that charges huge dues. The only reason that they have any ability to pay for lawyers to sue anyone that doesn't pay, is due to the fact that some folks still pay the dues. If everyone stopped paying at once, then the board wouldn't have any money to sue with, and they'd just go away, leaving all of the people to live their lives in a normal fashion.

If you live in America and feel that you live in a normal fashion, then *that's* the problem.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely reason for the seizure of equipment is so that it can be modified to allow surveillance.

Re:Update the constitution

[budgenator]

You mean like the constitution of the USA, which president Bush openly condemned as just a piece of paper?

Yup it's just a piece of paper as long as the people who have sworn to protect and defend it agains all enemies forgien and domestic don't.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

Land of the Free(*).

*Conditions may apply.

That's a US thing. This man was held in the UK where they don't even pretend that people have rights anymore.

Under so call anti-terror laws the UK police can do pretty much anything to anyone without even needing the hint of suspicion. At least this man wasn't murdered by the police like Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been very hesitant to actually use this provision of RIPA, which is speculated to be because they know it's in conflict with EU law.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

That comes under :

Home of the brave (*)

So when 10 armed US police are beating down someone who did something minor but doesn't deserve a lynching how many brave people stand up for the guy getting beaten? Nobody ever does because anyone that tried would be killed on the spot.

As far as I can remember I've only heard of that happening once when a group of UK police were beating down schoolchildren and a crowd thought the police were going too far.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

You are right in what you say but can I just suggest regular encrypted backups? After all it's not just the police that steal things, regular thieves do too.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

Thank you. I'm not on my normal PC right now, and don't feel like figuring out or resetting my password.

As for my style, I wanted to be as ridiculous as the AC I responded to.

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments.

Yes, I know there is a range of views. I just think it's funny that certain partisans on the left act like they are the lone liberal voice, when they obviously are not.

This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

No, I was making up the "in one of his books" line, to go with the original false claim of Bush saying it. I have read one of his books, by the way. It gives great insight into his current actions and policies.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - these powers can only be used to investigate whether a person is involved in terrorist activity or groups. So arresting him over the official secrets act would be admitting that they had misused the powers in the first place.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

Did you read the story or do you not realise that Heathrow airport is just outside London, England ?

Heathrow is in the London Borough of Hillingdon. As it's inside London the worst excesses of the anti-terror laws apply. Police can search anyone for no reason and they often do. Apparently they can steal property too which isn't entirely new to UK police.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

Exactly. There isn't any point physically carrying this stuff when you can send it though the Internet or post it.

Re:Update the constitution

[danbert8]

At a US border crossing, I feared (sad that I fear my own government) them asking to search my Blackberry. They were already searching my car and made me leave my phone in the car. They also told me I had to wait in their lobby and I was not allowed to witness the search. My Blackberry is password protected though, and if they demanded I give them my password, THANKFULLY it is technically my company's property and I would have told them that they'll have to call my company's lawyers if they wanted access to their property. Hopefully that would have stopped it, but is the threat of a corporate lawyer really a saving grace? Thankfully I didn't have to find out. I just had to be interrogated and sent on my way... I mean really, is it suspicious that a guy doesn't remember his girlfriend's birthday? Is it scary that the government does?

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

Let the left versis right stuff go. Both Democrat and Republican governments increase government power and screw over the population. Neither believe in the US constitution. They are both the problem.

Re:Update the constitution

[1s44c]

It's just theft. Who do you complain to when the police steal your stuff? Nobody can do anything.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The rozzers seized a number of encrypted files from Greenwald's partner. He might still be cited to appear before some court and asked to produce the keys...

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain how your paying of your taxes makes you a murderer since the government uses it to kill death row inmates or go to war. Paying the GCHQ for intelligence doesn't make the NSA culpable for the UKs misdeeds.

Re:Update the constitution

[intermodal]

Meanwhile, the will always deny any legal responsibility for the damage they did in examining your belongings.

Re: Update the constitution

[Builder]

All they have to do is ask you for the key again the day you are released. You refuse, they put you away again. So it doesn't have to stack. All that has to happen is that the CPS choose to present the case again.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I am increasingly concerned that my (English) government is increasingly doing what the USA government wants it to

Your government does what it wants, and always has. Sometimes that falls into alignment with what the US desires, sometimes not.
What I find more disturbing is this recent phenomenon where people think that Europe was some kind of bastion of liberty and freedom prior to the Evil US getting all "up in their business".
No, I'm not excusing my government's actions, but European nations have always been far more restrictive. It's the US sliding more towards your policies in this regard, not the other way around. Here's an idea- maybe you people should stop this pissing match about whose government are the filthier swine, realize they're all swine, and more to the point try to DO something about it other than whining on slashdot.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Updating the Constitution won't help you when you're detained in the United Kingdom under UK Laws. I understand on slashdot that reading the summary is not as common, so I guess actually comprehending the facts in the summary is a bit too much to ask.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The government can confiscate your posessions in port areas and it is not considered grand theft. My mother was a customs agent at LAX for several years, and they could and were able to confiscate all sorts of contraband things. True, drugs was a big part of it, but she also had a story about one time they decided to do a search of several boxes of phamplets being moved by the Church of Scientology. The phamplets were full of anti-government propaganda, which is illegal to move via the ports as it was considered seditious material, and it was confiscated. The boxes were well over the grand theft value, but it's still fully in the government's rights to do so.

If they suspect that you have data that belongs to someone else (or the government) on your personal electronic devices, you will find that your right to ownership of those devices very quickly loses credibility in the courts. Again, case in point; when I worked in a financial services firm, a broker was fired for sexual harassment reasons. He had a personal computer with all of his clients' names and addresses and account statements and all set up on his own small network amongst him and his staff in addition to the computers that were provided to him by the company. As he was fired, his office was locked and he was not allowed on the premises. He sued to get his computer, and he lost because while the computer was his personal property, the client information on it legally belonged to the company, and he was only able to get it once said data was wiped (which took 6-8 months, to ensure only the client data was wiped and not his personal info).

So it's all well and good you want to stand on your soap box, but your argument fails in that while it may seem morally right to you, it is not legally right.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

And now this incredibly stupid lie gets modded up.

There was an eye witness who stated Bush said that. Bush was asked and did not deny saying it. So, what's the issue? Were you there to confirm it wasn't uttered?

This AC was overheard saying "I like to rape children and eat their hearts, while having sex with the Devil on an altar made from the bones of an Alien Space Man." A second AC has confirmed hearing it.

Were you there to confirm it wasn't uttered?

Re:Update the constitution

[LongearedBat]

I suppose this was the UK version of a Miranda Warning.

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"that showed GCHQ was basically being partially funded by the NSA"

Which, again, involves the U.S.

Thanks for making the point.

He was detained because the GCHQ was pissed off, not because the NSA was pissed off which is what the parent was trying to claim. So no, he did not make the point, he disproved it.

Re:Update the constitution

[budgenator]

That depends on how you define is.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

and so forth all they way up the ladder to some dick who knew exactly who he was and wanted to send a message as a favor for some friends in Washington.

Yes, it's all about a US conspiracy. Wouldn't have anything to do with them catching the GCHQ admitting they are taking cash from the NSA and having broader reach and less oversight. Nope, nothing to do with that at all.

Re:Update the constitution

[Grumbleduke]

There is; under this law they have to return the stuff within 7 days unless they're actually pressing charges/bringing criminal proceedings. See paragraph 11(2).

Re: Update the constitution

[Grumbleduke]

I don't think a court would go along with that, I imagine the rules on double jeopardy would come into effect as it would be effectively prosecuting someone twice for the same thing,

Re: Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Implicit in your comment is that the actions of the UK are part of a US conspiracy to hold the world in bondage. Get a fucking grip.

Re:Update the constitution

[hamburger lady]

Greenwald has bragged that some of the Snowden docs he has detail how the UK secret service operates.

believe me, the UK has their own reasons to try to get their hands on this stuff.

Re:Update the constitution

[PraiseBob]

Perhaps you aren't aware, but Border Patrol has the "legal" right to copy your smartphone's contents:

From the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights ):
Q: Can the police search my computer or portable devices at the border without a warrant?
A: Yes. So far, courts have ruled that almost any search at the border is "reasonable" - so government agents don't need to get a warrant. This means that officials can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport may be considered the functional equivalent of a border, even if it is many miles from the actual border.

They also have the technical ability to do it while bypassing your password:

"The CelleBrite UFED is a handheld device that Michigan officers have been using since August 2008 to copy information from mobile phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The device can circumvent password restrictions and extract existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags."

And yes, Cellebrite proudly boasts of their ability to bypass Blackberry passwords. Here's a partial list of government contracts for the "Unversal Forensic Extraction Device". Note the extensive DHS and Border Patrol purchases: http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/5493513/Cellebrite-Usa-Corp-in-Glen-Rock-NJ

The only reasonable conclusion for why they would have you leave your phone in the car, is that they copied the entire contents of your blackberry, and sifted through it.

Sorry to tell you this, but your worst fears already happened. Not only did they search the phone, they made a complete copy of it and have the legal right to look at the contents anytime they want. Welcome to the USA.

Re: Update the constitution

[Spottywot]

Umm yea, when I asked for an essay I was only joking. Listen, the next time I write anything about 1984 I'll make sure that is completely unambiguous, not requiring any thought to ascertain the meaning of my post. I should probably have said 'world as it was at that time' not Britain, although as you'll find from the pompous quotes I provided(or indeed reading the damn book), Britain at the time was a major influence on the book. 'The world as it was in 1948, not a vision of the future' is a quote (paraphrased can't find the direct quote for you now as I am at work) from Orwell himself, not some bullshit pompous essay.

Re:Update the constitution

[RockDoctor]

The USA constitution is irrelevant. It doesn't apply to countries other than the USA. This is an action by the UK government (via their lap dogs, the police) on UK pressmen and their friends and families.

Exactly as expected.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh! It's pure intimidation at the request of the US government.

Re:Update the constitution

[kermidge]

Constitutions, sovereign compacts, and law apply to the poor and thus powerless. Exceptions are for embarrassment to one's class, a scapegoat or sop to the masses if caught doing something too extreme to shrug off, as an example _pour encourager les autres_, or some combination.

Abiding the law applies only to those who can't afford the exemption therefrom.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really, is it suspicious that a guy doesn't remember his girlfriend's birthday?

That is pretty weird actually. Was she there? Because I'm sure she'll remember that you forgot.

Re:Update the constitution

[sumdumass]

Please tell me more about what that has to do with an action the UK took at a UK airport under UK law with UK agents? How exactly again can Obama or the USA fire and imprison those UK agents for not doing something under UK law?

Re:Update the constitution

[shentino]

Maybe I wasn't talking about obama at all, but someone at the high end of the MI5 or so food chain that just happened to be chummy with him?

Re:Update the constitution

[evanism]

At what stage, at what juncture and at what point do normal people decide that enough is enough. That the government no longer acts in the interests of its people, but only itself and becomes so egregious, so intolerable and so profoundly unacceptable that the only course of action is to forcefully eject the members of the parliament and destroy it?

Elections are not enough. Two party systems create their own velocities and duopolies never truly contest each other. They are in a cosy relationship, like that of a binary star system, that will last a billion years.

At what stage do we, again as ORDINARY citizens, proclaim the system is evil, corrupt and rotten? Do we take up arms?

I don't think people these days have the guts, willpower or determination. Aldus Huxley was right in Brave New World.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, yet true.

Re:Update the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the US, there is no limit to civil forfeiture. If authorities think that your possessions were used in a crime, they can take them even if you are never charged with a crime at all. This includes personal effects, possessions, and real property.

Quite incorrect. There is a limit, but it's routinely ignored. The right to expect that the government will not steal your stuff certainly arises under the 9th Amendment, as a right "retained by the people, supported by the 10th Amendment, as a right "reserved to the people", and -- like all rights of individuals that can reasonably be asserted under the Bill of Rights -- is binding on all legal professionals, legislators, Presidents, Governors, and police officers. Violation of such a right is a violation of the oaths such people swear to uphold the Bill of Rights, and as such disqualifies them from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or receiving a pension.

If the government could steal your stuff in such a situation -- where no reasonable person would permit the government to do so -- that would naturally create an artificial demand for the services of the legal profession, since for all practical purposes you would effectively be forced to hire a lawyer to get it back. Thus, the right to ethical practice of law applies, and disallows such conduct. Enforcement of any law to the contrary by a legal professional, or even allowing somebody else to enforce such a law, is unethical practice of law. Any precedents to the contrary are illegal precedents as a result of ethical conflict of interest, as judges are themselves legal professionals (and subject to bribery by associations representing the interests of the legal profession).

Thus, ultimately, the limit that the actions of government must be reasonable applies as a result of the right to legal ethics.

The problem is that ethical practice of law is a dead idea in the US legal system. Who watches the watchmen? The Supreme Court routinely ignores very serious ethics problems in the rulings it hands down. This has been true since at least the 1940s. At best, you get the illusion they care about ethics, without any real substance. Most congressmen (and women) are lawyers, and have no interest at all in legal ethics reform.

Hence, the USA is stuck in a situation where we have a massively screwed up legal system, and the very people who, in theory, should be responsible for fixing these kinds of problems are the same people that benefit from taking no action.

The Bar Associations -- by any standard the most powerful lobbies in the country -- are terrified that sooner or later people will figure out just how bad things are -- every major area of US law is currently riddled with ethics problems, like the results of a cancer metastasising in the body of the law -- and can be expected to go to almost any length to prevent reform (or divert it to make sure that nothing actually changes).

But who knows. Maybe the Brits will get upset about this, and start pushing for recognition that fundamental rights are being violated, and then perhaps the people of the USA will be able to use that example as a springboard to force change in the US system.

Re: Update the constitution

[Builder]

Double jeopardy was done away with in the uk. You can now be tried multiple times until the CPS get the result they wanted in the first place. The first convictions under these rules have already happened.

Re: Update the constitution

[Grumbleduke]

Double jeopardy has been limited, in that there are now fairly limited grounds on which a re-trial can happen. It only applies for certain "serious crimes" and only with the consent of the DPP, and after the Court of Appeal has quashed the original aquittal due to the existence of "new and compelling evidence". More details here.

As someone who's had to try to find this sort of "new and compelling evidence" in a criminal case (although the other way around - seeking to quash a conviction, rather than an acquittal), it's quite hard to do...

Re:Update the constitution

[sumdumass]

I don't know. But when you look at the progression of this thread and my comments to it, then any misunderstanding would be on your part for not being specific. If you meant something other then what the thread was discussing, the onus would be on your to distinguish that when making your comment. That would clear up any confusion.

Play it their way

[ColdWetDog]

Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.

I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.

Re:Play it their way

[Jeremy Erwin]

perhaps randomly permuted to suggest the use of stenography.

Re:Play it their way

[K. S. Kyosuke]

OR, actually containing steganographically encoded JPEGs of Obama having it off with Cameron.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff. I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.

If you're going to troll, have about 400GB of concatenated copies of trollface.jpg, and rename them as follows:

wlinsurance-20130815-A.otp
wlinsurance-20130815-B.otp
wlinsurance-20130815-C.otp

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.

I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.

And then, strangely, on further analysis the forensics specialist discover thousands of pictures of child porn in an almost overlooked subdirectory on one of the pieces of electronics. Oh dear, that's decades in prison for you, to learn the error of your ways.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Nyan Cat ftw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

Re:Play it their way

[Teun]

I think you just gave them reasons for hefty fines due to IP or copy right infringement.

Or can you show a receipt for that stuff?

Re:Play it their way

[VortexCortex]

Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.

I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.

Are you insane?! They would jail him for possession of Kitty Porn!

Re:Play it their way

[girlintraining]

I think a couple of Terabytes of 'Hello Kitty' videos placed on every bit of electronics that he owns should teach them the error of their ways.

If they insist on calling everyone and everything a terrorist, might as well turn everything into terrorism... I mean, if you're going to be treated like a criminal, what's there to hold you back from actually being a criminal then? Distribute SDcards that melt when connected to a computer, fill up harddrives with spyware and malware... encrypt everything with incriminating-sounding names and impossibly-long keys.

There's no deterrent to terrorism if everyone is treated like one -- it's criminal law theory 101. When everything results in the death penalty... the law effectively has zero deterrent value. Whether you steal a candy bar, or the moon, it all means the same. Zero tolerance leads to people concluding... hey, if you're gonna go at all, go big.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you're gonna get stopped. Yep, they're going to go through your stuff.

This is a new (and apparently controversial) "anti-terrorist" measure in UK. Hard to come with a better example of abuse.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

if they want to find child porn they will have decided to beforehand, not because they see troll faces on the disks.

Re:Play it their way

[ColdWetDog]

Distribute SDcards that melt when connected to a computer

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newspaper.

Re:Play it their way

[MichaelSmith]

I think David Miranda should travel with a suitcase full of interesting and time consuming devices. How about core memory, punch cards, paper tape, files-11 formatter shadow sets on SCSI-1 disks, RL02 disks and zip disks, just for a start?

Also I forgot 300 baud FSK data on audio cassettes.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the audio tracks would have steg.. (sp?) mp3s of Obama's speeches that he gave to the queen on an ipod.

Maybe with an intro to each one by someone imitating the queen, with comments on how she likes it.

Re:Play it their way

[girlintraining]

Judging by the moderation on my comment... sarcasm is a quality the robots that have mod points don't understand. Maybe I should submit myself as a turing test...

Re:Play it their way

[shentino]

Then they'll just rat you out for copyright infringement.

Re:Play it their way

[shentino]

It's not really about deterrence.

It's about control of the population.

Re:Play it their way

[rastos1]

I have a harddisk in the drawer that has fallen on the floor in 1997 and makes a rattling noise when powered up. I have some very personal files there that I would love to get back ...

Re:Play it their way

[mwvdlee]

Be sure to rename all your "hello kitty" video files appropriately as such;

How to make a bomb.avi
Airfield security training video.avi
Chemistry of explosives.avi
Boeing 747 flight controls overview.avi

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the kitties!!!

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to. They will do it for you after they seize your computer. :-) Just kidding, of course they won't. No need to. No judge will ever see your computer they can claim whatever they like.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

At least name them .mov and wait for the groans as they have to install QuickTime player and if they choose the wrong installer, iTunes and Safari as well.

Re:Play it their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the moderation on my comment... sarcasm is a quality the robots that have mod points don't understand. Maybe I should submit myself as a turing test...

No, but you _should_ stop complaining every time you get a -1.

Re:Play it their way

[Winchy]

Well the good news is that you don't need to fix the drive to get your personal information back. Just write to the NSA and ask them for a copy :-)

Re:Play it their way

[canadiannomad]

Distribute SDcards that melt when connected to a computer

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newspaper.

Sorry it is only available on SD cards.

Re:Play it their way

[Phreakiture]

I tried that. They never got back to me. I didn't, however, try filing a FOIA request . . . that might have worked.

Re:Play it their way

[RockDoctor]

When everything results in the death penalty... the law effectively has zero deterrent value.

This took place in the civilized world. We don't have a death penalty.

And to squash that old canard - no punishment, capital or smacked-wrist, has any deterrent effect if the perpetrator does not consider themselves likely to be caught.

Is the melting SD card hyperbole, or do you actually have a source? The only credible way I can think of to make something like this would be to make an SD card stuffed with thermite, and burn the thermite on writing. Which would get me serious jail time for trying to carry explosives onto a plane. Maybe releasing mercury metal from the SD card into the offending computer would work. Or ... where's my gallium? But nonetheless, carriage of such materials without the appropriate IATA paperwork completed, submitted and accepted gives them the grounds to lock you up and throw away the key anyway, so "meh".

Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..

Re:Waiting..

[maroberts]

For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..

Damn you, I'd just logged on to start this meme... :-)

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..

In the UK, you don't have Miranda rights.

It's up to you to decide if that's a joke or not.

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruity Oaty Bars!

Re:Waiting..

[Jeremy Erwin]

Nor do you have the right to contact a solicitor, as this is ostensibly about terrorism. Can't have the proper climate of fear with pesky lawyers running around.

Re:Waiting..

[Jade_Wayfarer]

That's a good one, pity I have no mod points today.

Re:Waiting..

[Reeznarch]

In Republican America, Rights have Miranda!

Re:Waiting..

[Zocalo]

I'll take the UK's non-existant Miranda rights over the "Menezes rights" that got applied the last time an innocent Brazilian national had a front-page run in with the UK's security services.

Re:Waiting..

[cold fjord]

Seven mistakes that cost De Menezes his life

Re:Waiting..

[Cederic]

Indeed, and then they promoted the Dick in charge.

Re:Waiting..

[Phrogman]

Me too :(

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, Miranda has no rights

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing more effective in creating a climate of fear like pesky lawyers, running around and infecting people.

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eto kuram nasmekh

Re:Waiting..

[Raemond]

In the UK, you don't have Miranda rights.

In the UK (England and Wales at least) you *do* have "Miranda" rights, and have done since around 1912 (54 years before Miranda v. Arizona), as anyone who's ever watched any UK TV Police drama can tell you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#England_and_Wales

Re:Waiting..

[Grumbleduke]

That puzzled me as well; the law specifically states that the "right to a lawyer" (which can be delayed anyway) only applies when the person is detained at a police station, not anywhere else.

What really disturbs me, though, was that the only case on this law I could find involved a guy who was illegally detained and questioned under this law (despite actually being a terrorist). The judge didn't have a problem with the lack of a solicitor noting that even if one did come along "he would have nothing to do" because the person being questioned has to answer all questions and fully comply. Somehow the judge failed to spot that the solicitor might be able to point out that, as in that case, the initial detention was illegal...

Re:Waiting..

[RockDoctor]

What are Miranda rights in the UK context?

Re:Waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistake #0: Living in a nanny-state.

Confirms what all of us know about our rulers

[Anonymous Coward]

They're bad people.

Re:Confirms what all of us know about our rulers

[cervesaebraciator]

Our rulers are, for the most part, not people. They're institutions and bureaucracies.

Re:Confirms what all of us know about our rulers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're people. Institutions and bureaucracies are comprised of people, unless you hadn't noticed. Neither exist or are capable of action or decision unless people do those things on their behalf. That those actions more often than not go against basic humanity makes the people doing it bad people.

Both institutions and bureaucracies make fine masks to hide behind, and give a sense of moral detachment because they give the ability to smear blame around, but at the end of the day it's up to each person to take responsibility for their own actions.

The disgusting excuse of "only obeying orders" has been tried unsuccessfully before. I seriously doubt that "only giving orders" gains as much headway.

Re:Confirms what all of us know about our rulers

[Type44Q]

Our rulers are, for the most part, not people. They're institutions and bureaucracies.

Correct; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Re:Confirms what all of us know about our rulers

[cervesaebraciator]

What you're saying is a comfort to many. We like to think, for example, that if only we elect moral and decent politicians (in other words, the ones we support) they'll head a moral and decent government. Its reassuring to believe that G. W. Bush's personal moral failings are chiefly responsible for the abuses of 2000-08 and if only Gore had won we'd have been spared government encroachment. Or, alternatively, if McCain had won we'd have been saved from the executive abuses that have occurred under Obama. It is a comfort to make politics and institutional behavior chiefly questions of individual moral agency because it offers an easy solution to whatever problems we might face: put the right people in charge.

As much comfort as this notion might offer, it fails to account for the fact that human beings create institutions which, on the one hand, constrain and direct individual behavior and which operate according to a logic of their own apart from the agency of the individuals who might serve in them, on the other hand. Both of these points are phenomena which have been well-studied at least since Max Weber and recent work on emergent behavior only reinforces them. Many were surprised to see the continuity of policy that has persisted over the past four presidential administrations (and arguably even further back into the Cold War). In this time we've seen some very different personalities in office, but such personality differences amount to little compared to what has continued unabated: the growth of federal bureaucracy; the growth of the warfare and security state and a concomitant aggressive foreign policy; the prominent ties between the financial sector, regulatory agencies, and monetary policy; the consistent energy policy (or ostensible and convenient lack thereof); the growth of ever more powerful lobbies; globalization; the reduction of social mobility--accelerating since the eighties; and a centralization of wealth and power in the hands of a class so concentrated it would have startled even C. Wright Mills.

It is easy to say that bad people do bad things and good people do good things. It is rather more disturbing to realize that good people can be made to participate in bad deeds unwittingly, and as part of a greater whole which operates according to its own logic.

Where's The People

[Anonymous Coward]

The People should act now, in their sovereign powers.

Games consoles?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"I don't always travel around the world to topple foreign governments by revealing their deepest secrets, but when I do, I have my Famicom games collection with me."

Re:Games consoles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "partner" in this case refers to reporter.

Re:Games consoles?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Neither do I. Should I?

Re:Games consoles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying sucks. You'd be surprised at the number of adults who make it suck less by showing others their Pokemons.

Re:Games consoles?

[Anonymous Coward]

the plural form is "Pokemens"

They took his electronic devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if he gets them back, would you trust a device that has been alone with a spook?

Re:They took his electronic devices

[K. S. Kyosuke]

would you trust a device that has been alone with a spook?

Not before you wash it.

Re:They took his electronic devices

[Anonymous Coward]

: )

Re:They took his electronic devices

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I'd still want it back to do a teardown and see if I got any free goodies.

Re:They took his electronic devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure you don't cross the streams. That would be bad.

Re:They took his electronic devices

[LongearedBat]

No. It may be haunted with malware, allowing it to be possessed, thereby turning it into a zombie device, which they could then use to lich his information. I suppose the best option ghoul'd be to restore it from a ghosted copy. I sus-spectre that they realised that he wouldn't want them back after that ghastly treatment.

Voltaire's dictum still applies

[Anonymous Coward]

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
  Voltaire

The odds of this fellow being used as sneakernet for Greenwald may not be zero but I'd be surprized if he had anything in his possession as he's not a working reporter and can't claim any defenses. That being said, reading and owning classified material that is not your own is not an offense unless you are bound by an oath of service.

For example, Bradley broke the law by distributing classified materials. Assange did not break any laws by receiving it or reading it.

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[CRCulver]

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. Voltaire

This discussion suggests this is a spurious quote, like most attempts to lend prestige to a banal remark by attaching this writer's name to it.

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[VortexCortex]

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. Voltaire

This discussion suggests this is a spurious quote, like most attempts to lend prestige to a banal remark by attaching this writer's name to it.

"The spurious quote, like most attempts to build prestige from mediocrity, requires attaching things to it."
-Voltron

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[Jeremy Erwin]

in US v Franklin et al, Rosen and Weissman were charged with " "Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it", and Rosen was charged with "Communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it,"

The government believes that Assange conspired with his sources and communicated to his readers.

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[Anonymous Coward]

"The spurious quote, like most attempts to build prestige from mediocrity, requires attaching things to it." -Voltron

I think you'll find that Voltron didn't actually write that. I'm pretty sure it was Voltaire.

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[serviscope_minor]

"The spurious quote, like most attempts to build prestige from mediocrity, requires attaching things to it."

-Voltron

I'm gonna fuck you up for saying that.
--Gandhi

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[Arancaytar]

As Lincoln said, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Re:Voltaire's dictum still applies

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, Bradley broke the law by distributing classified materials. Assange did not break any laws by receiving it or reading it.

He only broke the law if that was, in fact, a legal law. A point concerning which there is considerable disagreement, with the government on one side and most sensible people on the other. Since the US Bill of Rights is open-ended, it really isn't up to the government to determine this.

"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

Call him boyfriend or spouse or something. Partner makes it sound like he might have been involved in the journalistic work (and detaining him would still be wrong).

Instead, they're targetting the journalist's relationships. It's absolutely despicable.

Re:"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

They want all the names, phone numbers, addresses, etc. from the devices.

Then they can harm, blackmail, investigate, force them to work for nefarious purposes... all of those acquaintancies.

Re:"Partner"

[Psyborgue]

It's Glenn's own word! I'm in a civil union with my "partner" and I don't particularly mind this term. Although I agree it can be confusing, most of the time people get what you mean by context. When I marry him this November, i'll call him my "husband" but not before then. You can blame the homophobes for creating this dual tier of unions but it does exist and I might as well use the proper confusing term as much as possible to emphasize just how idiotic it was that until just recently I couldn't get married.

Re:"Partner"

[wisnoskij]

Partner implies that he was his journalistic partner in Snowden case.

Re:"Partner"

[girlintraining]

... you know, some of us use the term partner because we wish to emphasize our commitment to each other, instead of the sex of our lover. Especially considering that not everyone fits into the boxes of 'man' and 'woman', thus 'wife' and 'husband' are poor fits. This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck, who deserves to be tied up in a public square and everyone who wants to given a free punch to his face. Don't worry... we won't let him die. Doctors will be on hand to stitch him back together again... and we're happy to wait until he's healed up again before resuming using his face as a punching bag.

-_- It's less harsh of a punishment than anything he's advocated.

Re:"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about? Glenn Beck has no bearing on this conversation. Glenn Greenwald is the subject of this discussion.

Re:"Partner"

[sribe]

It's Glenn's own word [theguardian.com]! I'm in a civil union with my "partner" and I don't particularly mind this term. Although I agree it can be confusing, most of the time people get what you mean by context. When I marry him this November, i'll call him my "husband" but not before then. You can blame the homophobes for creating this dual tier of unions but it does exist and I might as well use the proper confusing term as much as possible to emphasize just how idiotic it was that until just recently I couldn't get married.

And in a written article, without any context to convey whether this is a personal or business relationship, the term "life partner" would be much better.

Re:"Partner"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Partner makes it sound like he might have been involved in the journalistic work (and detaining him would still be wrong).

He is involved - he was returning from a trip to Berlin to work with Laura Poitras the documentary film-maker whom Snowden also reached out to. The trip was paid for by Greenwald's newspaper, the Guardian.

Re:"Partner"

[VortexCortex]

They want all the names, phone numbers, addresses, etc. from the devices.

Then they can harm, blackmail, investigate, force them to work for nefarious purposes... all of those acquaintancies.

Haha, oh man, that's rich! So, the folks who are reporting on the latest of a series of enormous spying apparatuses -- Omnivore, Carnivore, Five Eyes, ECHELON, now PRISM -- All of which could collect names, phone numbers, addresses, etc. from everyone in the world, are having their electronics stolen so that $THREE_LETTER_AGENCY can get at this info they already have? Ha ha! That's hilarious.

Now, I want you to think strongly about the next part said. What the admittedly corrupt and covert folks would do if they had access to this information about this one Journalist: "harm, blackmail, investigate, force them to work for nefarious purposes", just to what? Further a political agenda? Ask yourself if you should be worried that folks who have job descriptions requiring precisely this level of nefariosity have the information already -- Not just for the journalists exposing them, but for everyone in the world.

Re:"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you drunk?

It's not Glenn Beck.

Re:"Partner"

[Rick Zeman]

Partner implies that he was his journalistic partner in Snowden case.

And that was exactly how I interpreted "partner."

Re:"Partner"

[oursland]

Perhaps, but in this context I thought he was referring to a journalist in which he was collaborating.

... you know, some of us use the term partner because we wish to emphasize our commitment to each other, instead of the sex of our lover.

If that is the case then "husband" would be an equally despicable word.

Re:"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck

Indeed.

Re:"Partner"

[Swampash]

The man detained is also Greenwald's PROFESSIONAL partner. He was on a work trip, doing journalism for the Guardian, paid for by the Guardian.

Re:"Partner"

[jrumney]

RTFA. He was returning from Berlin on tickets paid for by the Guardian, having met with a director who is making a film about Snowden. So partner seems to be the correct word here, in both senses.

Re:"Partner"

[Khashishi]

the term "fiance" is androgynous.

Re:"Partner"

[oursland]

Actually it isn't. There's "fiancé", which is the masculine form, indicating a man about to be married and "fiancée", the feminine form for a woman about to be married.

Re:"Partner"

[jkflying]

Well, to be pedantic, GHCQ would fall under $FOUR_LETTER_AGENCY, and in more ways than one.

Re:"Partner"

[jkflying]

Yep, and he's also due to marry Greenwald in November. So you're right, and GP is right.

Re:"Partner"

[Doghouse13]

"Partner" has been the term of choice for a good couple of decades in the UK for a significant other to whom one is not married. It doesn't normally require clarification over here, and it seems unsurprising that Glenn Greenwald chose to use it; I presume it's simply the normal way in which he refers to David Miranda.

Re:"Partner"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suggests", not "implies". But yes, that's how I understood it upon reading. In fact, it turns out that they are both kinds of partners.

Re:"Partner"

[dkleinsc]

But not to be confused with "hetero-life-mate".

Thats a lot of electronics

[MichaelSmith]

He travelled with a laptop, phone and games consoles? What did he have ? A Wii and a PS2 to use on the plane?

Re:Thats a lot of electronics

[Anonymous Coward]

The non gaming public refers to things like the vita and ds as games consoles.

Re:Thats a lot of electronics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo DS/i/whatever, Playstation Vita, PSP, err nvidia Shield?. I dunno im running out.

President McCain strikes again

[Kohath]

They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see press freedoms abridged around the world to cover up US Government lawlessness. And they were right!

Re:President McCain strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Garbage GOP propaganda doesn't really update the situation here. Sorry.

Re:President McCain strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see press freedoms

They told you? Citation needed.

Ultimately self-defeating

[niks42]

Surely anyone worth their salt would just put their data in the Cloud, and password-protect it? Ah, just remembered it is illegal in the UK not to remember a password when the Authorities want you to decrypt something - punishable by itself with 2 years imprisonment - not to mention obstruction and all of the other offences they could mention.

Re:Ultimately self-defeating

[jpublic]

Ah, just remembered it is illegal in the UK not to remember a password when the Authorities want you to decrypt something

Looks like similar things happen in the US. A damn shame.

Re:Ultimately self-defeating

[lxs]

If by "Cloud" you mean "The Pirate Bay" then that may be exactly what they have done. With a little help from mr. Julian in the London office of course.

Re:Ultimately self-defeating

[VortexCortex]

Surely anyone worth their salt would just put their data in the Cloud, and password-protect it? Ah, just remembered it is illegal in the UK not to remember a password when the Authorities want you to decrypt something [...]

This is why I keep large blobs of random noise on all my devices. I even put them in my games. That?! Oh, it's just the random number look up table, or source and destinations for seemingly random yet looping particle swarm positions, or bitmap frames for the TV static in the game.

No, REALLY, it is!

Re:Ultimately self-defeating

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get out much, do you? A great deal of allegedly confidential data is already "in the cloud", protected by nothing but contracts that specifically hold the cloud vendor not accountable for governmental intrusions. I just went through this with a school, who were keeping unencrypted student passwords in a MySQL server "in the cloud" so that teachers could "easily reset student passwords" and prevent student's from saying "I can't log in!!!"

Re:Ultimately self-defeating

[Jane Q. Public]

I would like it to be very clear that this person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737 -- i.e., me) who has been posting here on Slashdot for years. The person above has only been posting for a couple of days.

Having said that, I also disagree with what this person posted. Judges have generally found that the 5th Amendment is very much implicated in situations such as this. The just linked to in the post above appears to disagree with just about every other judge who has ruled on this matter.

I do not yet know Slashdot's policy in regard to impersonation of other members, but I intend to find out. While I have not noticed this person doing anything blatantly malicious, it is my opinion that my Slashdot name is deliberately being used to mislead people.

Damn Journalists

[Fuzzums]

They're the worst kind of terrorist. Fighting with Pen And Truth and using the internet as IED and WMD.

The loyal ones write about what the government want you to believe.
Then there is a bunch of them that write about oil spills and the banking system.
But the worst are those that turn against their government and write the truth.

Tar, Feathers, etc

[Freddybear]

Some assembly required.

MOD PARENT UP

[forand]

I agree it is just as misleading to use partner to imply ONLY a personal relationship when the facts of the matter indicate that he was both a personal partner and a journalistic partner.

The kids

[no-body]

in the sandbox are mad at the guy digging up their secret stones (treasures) and now they get at him and his friends whenever they are showing up.
"Getting even" - what a child's play!

Grown-ups? No way Jose...

Global abuse of terrorism legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Such blatent and in-your-face abuse of power only serves to curtail legitimacy of the state. These actions accomplish nothing and are ultimatly self defeating.

Obvious lesson.

[SuricouRaven]

When traveling internationally, make backups. And don't take anything remotely incriminating - even if it means reformatting the laptop. Any data you need to work with, store online somewhere.

And if you really want to annoy those who seek to annoy you, take the family photo album and be happy knowing that some low-level agent is going to have to spend eight hours looking through the library of pictures of people standing around.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[mendax]

When traveling internationally don't carry anything that can be confiscated. I've already decided that the next time I travel internationally (something I don't do often) to never carry anything electronic. I keep a diary but only on paper and I will mail it and anything else I've written ahead. It's not that I write anything worthy of government scrutiny or that they would pay particular attention to me but an American has few civil rights in the United States when crossing an international border, including the international no-man's-land in an airport and I do not trust the government. I've seen too much of it's bad behavior and had enough personal experience with it to never trust it again.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[mbstone]

If you're an uppity reporter, or a family member or friend of an uppity reporter, carry lots of hard drives and DVDs full of random 1s and 0s, so NSA, GCHQ etc. can expend resources attempting to decrypt them.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[SuricouRaven]

They'd just demand the key, then arrest you for failing to provide it.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[rtfa-troll]

Have a non UK person encrypt it remotely. Keep a log of the commands used. If she gets asked for the keys other than by a special agreed procedure (which should be designed to prove to him that you aren't in police custody or acting under duress she is to destroy them. I guess that would be interesting legally.. I'd ask a lawyer first.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you really want to annoy those who seek to annoy you, take the family photo album and be happy knowing that some low-level agent is going to have to spend eight hours looking through the library of pictures of people standing around.

Just make sure there are no old photos of you and your spouse bathing your infant child.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[gsslay]

store online somewhere.

Well if you're going to do that, you may as well email it direct to the NSA. Cut out the middle-man. I'm sure Governments would love it if everyone took your advice. It would do away with all the tedious waiting around in airports. They can grab your data without even leaving the office.

take the family photo album

Those photos will come in very handy, now that anti-terrorism laws extend to the family of those who report on security issues. It'll help identify the people you are conspiring with.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[RockDoctor]

I keep a diary but only on paper and I will mail it and anything else I've written ahead.

What makes you think it will arrive? Of the mail that we send to the wife's family, about 20% disappears en route. And that's when sending it recorded-delivery.

Carry a photocopy and manually update the master version when you get back from your trip.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[RockDoctor]

Ask a lawyer if you want to ; you'd be wasting your money. As I understand it, your obligation to provide the decryption key is absolute. If you don't decrypt it, they'll take that as evidence of a conspiracy to "avoid the ends of justice," concerning the crime that you're charged with, for which the punishment is around twice what you'd get for pleading guilty to the crime.

The system is designed to not be winnable by the accused. The designers may have been fucking lawyers, but unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean that they were clinically retarded while designing the system.

Re:Obvious lesson.

[SuricouRaven]

I wouldn't even feel happy running a drive overwritten with random data - they might claim that data is encrypted secrets, and demand the key for it. Only way I can see to avoid giving them something they can use against you would be to either write zeros over the whole drive and do an OS reinstall. Make sure you have a legitimate Windows license. Don't install linux - to the over-suspicious, those strange black screens and white text could be classed as a 'hacking tool.'

Re:Obvious lesson.

[RockDoctor]

Make sure you have a legitimate Windows license.

why would I want one of those? I don't run Windows.

Don't install linux - to the over-suspicious, those strange black screens and white text could be classed as a 'hacking tool.'

Set it up to run a thing called X-windows - there are many variants out there - which the Windows operating system imitates in some visually important respects.

Besides, I use green-on-black screens, which every one knows is a sign of being plugged directly into the Matrix, and so one is not to be fucked-with. Infallible armour! (Not that I need armour when wearing my Mormon Magical panty-girdle.)

Amnesty says David Miranda is Guardian Employee?

[hazeii]

According to this release, David Miranda is a Guardian employee. Anyone know if that's right, or a reporting glitch?

When states act like terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

They are asking for a full blown war with the population. And they will have it.

The problem with inbred chief David Cameron is that he isn't even worth the cost of the bullet his head is due to welcome.

Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance file

[colordev]

Apparently Snowden (and other heroes) had decided that any disappearing family members would trigger the tripwire that leads to releasing of insurance files. Since the journalist's spouse had suddenly gone missing (for 9 hours) and the police probably did not allow any phone calls to be made during interrogation,... Showden (and other heroes) then probably concluded they were under some kind of attack or that they were being tested. So Snowden (and other heroes) did what they had to do - what's the point of having an insurance policy that you would not use.

This is a chicken game. If many key wikileaks people would suddenly disappear, then Snowden (or other heroes) would probably release both encrypted insurance files and the encryption key to the smaller (49GB) insurance file. At least I hope that's what they are prepared to do. Then the NSA and GCHQ would probably have stopped the attack, at least for a moment, and considered the nature of payload data in the first insurance file. Based on that payload NSA might then choose to risk the release of the 349 GB file or they might stop their attack... maybe even for good. To prepare for the next attack phase Snowden (and other heroes) might again have split the remaining 349GB file into a 300GB and 49GB file - the small file being there again as a similar first response tool, but also the key to the nuclear option file (349GB) might also be released at any time.

Basically the NSA and GCHQ had to get this message.

This is so stupid, Snowden is obviously an American Patriot, who still isn't really seeking to harm his country... a country that is trying to harm him as much as it can. It is not very common that asylum seekers keep protecting the country that is doing all it can to harm the asylum seeker. Thus, the today's release of encrypted insurance files was probably just an expected reply to the earlier provocation by the NSA and GCHQ.

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[Anonymous Coward]

From Star-Chamber style secret courts? Give us a break!

Looks like the Chicago Way. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . . .has made it to Britain.

"Nice boyfriend you have there, Mr. Greenwald. Would sure be a shame if something happened to him. . . . "

Re:Looks like the Chicago Way. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nice boyfriend you have there ..."

That's enough isn't it? How many people knew this pesky journalist was gay? They hold his "partner" in custody and without taking any further action (there was never any to be taken). They're telling us all "that guy writing unkind things about our spies ... he's a queer, you know. One of Burgess' mob."

I don't know about you, but I would rather the NSA/GCHQ stuck a camera in my bedroom, than believe anything a homo told me!

OK sorry, that last line was ironic, but for a percentage of the population this information will somewhat affect their perception of the issue. PSYOPs.

So what are you willing to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are you willing to do about it, other than complain on slashdot?

Re:So what are you willing to do about it?

[isorox]

So what are you willing to do about it, other than complain on slashdot?

Complain on facebook too!

Re:Only Obama is the terrorist

[The Grim Reefer]

Too bad Americans don't have the balls to try him for treason!

Too bad the civilian population doesn't have the balls or the armament to try 90%+ of our current government officials for treason.

When was the last time congress has put a budget in front of the president for a signature? I find that alone to be disgusting.

Miranda rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm...What happens if police don't give Miranda rights to Mr. Miranda? O.o

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being the 'partner' of a journalist does not entitle you to the normal freedoms of actually being a member of the press

No, but he's still entitled to the normal freedoms of being a fucking human being.

Re:Amnesty says David Miranda is Guardian Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a cop's partner also a cop? I'd assume the reporter's partner is also a reporter.

I'm pretty sure they're not talking about his husband.

This is exactly why we can't trust Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of exactly why we cannot trust Governments with the power of mass surveillance.

Re:This is exactly why we can't trust Governments

[EmagGeek]

Why did you bother narrowing the scope of your subject line?

planned outrage

[lophophore]

What did they think would happen? Greenwald pissed off the UK intelligence apparatus (not to mention the Americans) and is apparently stupid enough to let his domestic partner fly through Heathrow?

That's just pulling on the Tiger's Tail. That's //asking for it//.

I think this was done as a stunt, because I cannot believe they would be as stupid to not expect exactly what happened. The forces that detained Miranda knew it was not right, but also knew it was with the letter of the law, and they did it to send a message. That message was delivered.

Now expect more messages to be delivered.

Re:planned outrage

[EmagGeek]

If that girl didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed so provocatively. What did she think was going to happen? SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT.

Re:planned outrage

[donscarletti]

I think the better analogy would be: "If that girl didn't want to get raped, she wouldn't have broken into that maximum security cell block full of sex offenders."

Re:planned outrage

[GrahamCox]

Dolt. In a free country, none of these things should be "expected".

Re:planned outrage

[lophophore]

"Dolt"? Nothing like the ad-hominem. You don't like my message, you call me names. That makes you a stupid asshole.

You expect your government to obey the law? Clearly you've NOT BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION AT ALL.

And you call me a dolt. Get a clue.

Amerika the Terror State

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Papers, please.

Brought to you by the same people who entertained you with "Destroyed the Village to Save It" and "Fighting for Peace".

Re:Amerika the Terror State

[ultranova]

Papers, please.

Every time I hear that, I remember that old Impossible Mission episode where the team is infiltrating a Soviet agent training camp only for the Soviets to start demanding papers - which, as it turns out after the commercial break, is just a training regime to prepare the agents for the American environment where the proper response to that is an angry refusal and demanding to see warrants. Because, after all, that is a very stark difference between the Soviet and American systems.

My, how times change.

Re:Amerika the Terror State

[danbert8]

Why did the Libertarian cross the road?

None of your damn business! Am I being detained?

Hitler has never been so happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the good guys even doctors are doing more harm than the bad guys.

Enough with the euphemisms!

[Anonymous Coward]

"David Miranda [...] was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities [...] the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual."

If direct, honest language were used, rather than euphemisms aimed at making the evil sound innocuous, the news report would say that Miranda was "abducted and held prisoner" for nine hours, not that he was merely "detained" or "held".

"Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles."

In other words, after nine hours of intimidation, they robbed Miranda of several thousand dollars worth of his personal property.

It's clear who the criminals are here, who are the true menace to society.

Re:Enough with the euphemisms!

[aristotle-dude]

"Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles."

In other words, after nine hours of intimidation, they robbed Miranda of several thousand dollars worth of his personal property.

It's clear who the criminals are here, who are the true menace to society.

This reminds me of the old saying: "Don't steal, the government hates competition.".

Re:Enough with the euphemisms!

[Alain Williams]

But you still repeat the euphemism confiscate, that should be stolen.

Genius is showing

[Anonymous Coward]

It took some kind of real genius to do this, so I suspect it originated in the US. The Brits couldn't possibly have come up with the move on their own.

Well, of course . . .

[hduff]

You don't poke a turd without getting shit on your finger,

Re:Only Obama is the terrorist

[game kid]

With the UK's (and undoubtedly US's) despicable attack against Greenwald (the sort of lover-detainment that's quite simply the "evil" of good-vs-evil stories everywhere) I'm now highly convinced the budget stuff is a distractive sideshow, or even exactly what Obama wants of Congress. (If a budget is never submitted, then there's no budget to scrutinize for, say, certain secret departments' expenses.)

As an American ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Papers, please.

Brought to you by the same people who entertained you with "Destroyed the Village to Save It" and "Fighting for Peace"

... it hurts me every time people point out the truth of my country, and, it hurts me MORE when I realize that there is NOTHING I could do to change the situation

Indeed, my country is turning, from the best country in the world, into a terrifying state

My heart hurts, man, when I realize that, I, as an American, can't do shit to change the course of my own country

Re: As an American ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Vote small (independent) and buy small (independent). Your actions won't count for much but if everyone does this....money won't control politics regardless of the opinion of SCOTUS.

Re:As an American ...

[Kalriath]

That's fine, this article isn't about the United States. It's about Britain, and lord knows the US government has proven time and again that it certainly can go and change the course of other countries!

Re:As an American ...

[Joce640k]

my country is turning, from the best country in the world, into a terrifying state

My heart hurts, man, when I realize that, I, as an American, can't do shit to change the course of my own country

Even more scary is that this is a British person detained in a British airport for reporting on something the USA is denying.

Re:As an American ...

[Winchy]

David Miranda is a Brazillian national.

Re:As an American ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how are those gun laws coming along? You know, the ones that allow civilians in the US to own assault rifles in order to scare the US government into respecting the "freedom" of its people.

Re:As an American ...

[the eric conspiracy]

Some of the stuff Snowden released contains British secrets.

Re:As an American ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have done a lot for the world, with slashdot (and I believe reddit wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slashdot). A lot of people have been enlightened by reading some of the insightful comments there since years.
Thanks.
AC

Re:As an American ...

[Joce640k]

That's even scarier then...

Re:As an American ...

[ivrogne]

My heart hurts, man, when I realize that, I, as an American, can't do shit to change the course of my own country

Those problems exist because most people are misinformed by the mainstream media. Something you can do is convince people you know to tune instead to alternative media like Al Jazeera, RT, DemocracyNow or The Nation, and care enough to want to talk to their friends etc. Probably don't count on social media, twitter censored #OWS so who knows how else those big corps could be gaming the system.

Re:As an American ...

[Meski]

Vote with your feet. (emigrate) It's probably all you can do as an individual.

Re:As an American ...

[hazeii]

<Iggy Pop>
Boy, I feel so outgunned today.
But I get up and fight back anyway.
</Iggy Pop>

From "Main Street Eyes".

There ma be a bit more here

[wbr1]

Sure, holding Miranda for 5 hours smacks of intimidation, but I think what they were really after was the devices to see if he had the files. Then he could be charged with some malarkey like attempting to take national secrets to another country, and possible trump up some charge on his partner about transferring them or being an accessory. If he was carrying some sort of unencrypted backup of the data, that also lets the spook agencies have a shot at seeing how much is bluff, and how much Snowden really stole.

Re:There ma be a bit more here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the slippery slope we've been telling you about. Sure at the time it sounded like a good idea to have anti-terrorism laws to protect the innocent, but now the same laws are used to terrorize the innocent.

Pig Man, ha ha, charade you are

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but Snowden wasn't that fucking stupid.

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was transporting classified information, then I would totally support his earning a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

Go back to your hill, Billy!

A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Taco Cowboy]

You mean like the constitution of the USA, which president Bush openly condemned as just a piece of paper?

True, that brainless dude did utter that inexcusable diatribe, but I believe you should also view the following youtube clip -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

You may be surprised to see, with your own eyes, that the current POTUS has said the following "... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties "

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide the link to a news article that confirms that? Or are you getting this from Daily Kos and its brethren sites?

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide the link to a news article that confirms that?

link to news articles that confirm WHAT ?

The phony "Constitution is a piece of paper" uttering from George Bush jr., or the youtube vid in which Obama said the thing as GP has outlined ?

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering his claim about Obama has a link to Obama's interview, I think it is obvious we don't need further proof of it. So I'm asking for proof of Bush's statement, which, as you point out, is indeed phony.

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Jeremy Erwin]

You may be surprised to see, with your own eyes, that the current POTUS has said the following "... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties "

Yes. Inasmuch as liberty can be divided into positive and negative freedoms, it's most useful to to think of the constitution as a guarantor of negative liberty.

See Positive and Negative Liberty for more details.

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[mellyra]

You may be surprised to see, with your own eyes, that the current POTUS has said the following "... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties "

And I'm a big fan of negative theology... I guess that means my god is one bad boy O.o

"positive" and "negative" don't mean what you think they mean. Your post is hilariously uninformed.

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[mellyra]

There you go: Positive and Negative Liberty.

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties "

OH look, someone else who failed high school Government class trying to act like he knows what the fuck he's talking about. For your homework assignment you are tasked with delivering 5,000 words on the idea of "positive" and "negative" liberties, starting with Kant's original proposal of the idea and continuing through modern political times.

Re:A youtube clip that you might want to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Did you even listen/read what he said? It's pretty clear what he means. The negative means the state can't do things that violate liberties. You know, like the bill of rights that starts with "Congress shall make no law". See, the word "no" is a negative term. Negative doesn't always mean bad.

I know you are not a moron, so what's going on here? Why this moronic attack on Obama? What's made you shut off your brain? Other than his skin color he doesn't seem that different than any recent president, but I've never seen so much blind hatred.

... but if everything does this ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Nonsense. Vote small (independent) and buy small (independent). Your actions won't count for much but if everyone does this ....money won't control politics regardless of the opinion of SCOTUS.

..."but if everyone does this" ?

Sir, I do not know which world you live in, but the world which I am from, the scenario that you have outlined WILL NOT HAPPEN, not when the vast majority of my fellow Americans prefer keep their sheeple status

Re: ... but if everything does this ...

[s.petry]

Stop whining and take action. Of course nothing changes while you claim defeat and do nothing. Grow a pair already! Yes it is going to take hard work to force change. You will have to talk to people, petition, and vote.

Re: ... but if everything does this ...

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is that when the election comes there are basically two choices, and both of them are shit. All people ever do is vote for whoever they think will give them the most money in their pocket.. Principals go out the window.

That's why smaller parties can gain some traction at the local level and in the European Parliament. When it comes to the general election though it's a two horse race and the only real issue is who will screw up the economy the least.

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[Sockatume]

You realise that the "sheeple" you're complaining about doubtless, to a man, justify their inaction by complaining that everyone else is inactive?

Re: ... but if everything does this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to be watched, why do you think so many religions around the world support the notion of an all knowing personal deity?

Christianity is the greatest surveillance state possible, a god that knows everything about you, everything you do online and off, past present and future, and has the power to make freak accidents and random yet not improbable events happen to you such that you will perceive them as signs of his blessing or that you've angered him. Yet despite this massive intrusion of privacy and personal security this god is the beloved object of affection for nearly a third of the population of earth, 2.2 billion people.

If the nanny state were the Orwellian nightmare that everyone pretends it is then people would be fighting it, but they're not because it's not. Crime is at record lows despite high unemployment, technology makes life comfortable for all classes and conditions of people, and quality of life is vastly superior today than even as short as 10 years ago. It's not that people are sheeple, as parent put it, but rather that people actually like the way things are. Take congress as an example, everyone loves their congressmen but congress as a whole is despised at historically low approval ratings.

This is not a flaw, but a feature. This is America working as designed. It just so happens that America was not designed for the massively large population of today. We need to revisit some of those 18th century concepts and ideals, we need to write better rules for how many representatives each state gets, maybe bring in a mathematician this time so everyone is represented proportionally instead of Montana's citizenry having multiple times the representation per person that a citizen of California has.

You wouldn't drive a 50 year old car to work each day in all weather, why would you govern a nation with a 200 year outdated rule book? The writer of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, only meant for the constitution to last 20 years if you take him at his word in Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote.

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[GameboyRMH]

I had an idea to address this, what if there were a website where people who would like to vote third-party but don't because they're worried about the "half a vote for the bad guys" effect could register that they would prefer to vote (third party) but are instead going to vote (mainstream party) and then the poll results would be displayed on the site.

If the stats came out to show that a vast majority would rather vote third-party...what would all those people do?

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the "sheeple" you're complaining about people complaining about mostly don't justify anything at all because they simply do not care?

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[enrevanche]

Even if only a minority votes independent or buys from smaller firms, the bigger this minority is the more of a damper it puts on the larger players. The more money a minority party has the more likely they will be able to get their message across to a larger audience. This can force either the Democrats or the Republicans or both change, at least to some degree, their policies. This is especially true around some of their most egregious ones.

This is also true in economic terms. Smaller firms with better service can force the larger ones to respond as well.

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[ThomasMcA]

Nothing will *ever* happen as long as those who disagree with the system do *nothing* about it. Sure, it is difficult for one person to change the system. But when has one person ever changed a governmental system without becoming a martyr? It takes teamwork and involvement to change governments. Personally, I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican president in my 30 years of voting. I probably never will.

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[ivrogne]

“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

Edmund Burke

Re:... but if everything does this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the smart and well-informed people did this it would make a difference.

Re: ... but if everything does this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining and take action. Of course nothing changes while you claim defeat and do nothing. Grow a pair already! Yes it is going to take hard work to force change. You will have to talk to people, petition, vote and disappear.

Fixed it for you :)

UK not US

[Roger W Moore]

No, not "land of the free". This happened in the UK, not the US and so far we haven't been quite so out of touch with reality to call the UK the "land of the free" - that seems to be a peculiarly american delusion. That being said I really hope that there are some mitigating facts that will come to light because, as it stands now, it is extremely concerning to see such an obvious and open abuse of power. If they are wiling to do this in plain sight what are they willing to do (or already doing) behind the scenes?

Re:UK not US

[nbauman]

we haven't been quite so out of touch with reality to call the UK the "land of the free" - that seems to be a peculiarly american delusion.

We read Areopagitica and all that stuff. You mean they don't really follow it?

NSA Style

[Beardydog]

"Do you want to see my papers?"
"No need, sir."
"But, I could be anyone!"
"No, you couldn't, sir."

Re:NSA Style

[Joce640k]

That's not too far off.

Pretty soon they'll be able to identify you by your smartphone.

(Anybody not carrying a phone or carrying a phone outside their normal turf is suspicious...)

Re:NSA Style

[intermodal]

They already can identifiy you by your smartphone if you don't have every single communication feature turned off. And even then, I have my doubts that they'll stop at that..

Re:NSA Style

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Why I leave mine in the hotel room, and wander about the area in dungarees and trainers.

Plausible deniability.

Re:NSA Style

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you want to see my papers?"

"No need, sir."

"But, I could be anyone!"

"No, you couldn't, sir."

This is Information Retrieval.

Re:NSA Style

[megahurts.gr]

I wish there was "Like" on slashdot! For this, and for Jeremiah Cornelius' "Have you got a 27B / 6 ?"

Massive attack indeed

[jodido]

And expect more of them as the world capitalist political-economic crisis deepens.

... grow a pair ?

[Anonymous Coward]

even after you managed to grow yourself TEN THOUSAND PAIRS you still ain't gonna do no shit to the Government of the United States of America

they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them

plus, even if the citizenry of the USA give a fuck, who are they going to vote for ?

i mean, what choice do they have in the polling station ?

vote Republicans ?

vote Democrats ?

vote alternative ? which alternative ??

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Fjandr]

The only way to change things that I've seen is for everyone to use as much public money as possible. Bleed the system dry as fast as possible until it is no longer sustainable (technically it's not sustainable already, but I mean to make the short term even shorter). At that point, it may be possible for sections of the country to secede and create countries which are small enough to be accountable to their citizenry.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[rtfa-troll]

even after you managed to grow yourself TEN THOUSAND PAIRS you still ain't gonna do no shit to the Government of the United States of America

they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them

This is what "they" have placed in your head to dis-empower you. By telling you that you can only vote for mainstream parties, the big parties avoid getting any competition. You should do it anyway just in order not to be a collaborator.

plus, even if the citizenry of the USA give a fuck, who are they going to vote for ?

i mean, what choice do they have in the polling station ?

vote Republicans ?

vote Democrats ?

vote alternative ? which alternative ??

Any alternative. Libertarian; Green; Californian Independence Party; Beer Party. Anything. Every vote for an alternative is a long term threat which shows people are unhappy. It builds up alternative parties by giving them money. It makes politicians from mainstream parties take an interest in your views and try to get you back. This gives a chance that change for the worse will slow.

The worst thing is to give up.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Joce640k]

As noted above, this WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Not enough people can see past their own front door. They won't do anything so long as they have cable TV. iPhones and hair weaves.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[budgenator]

Bleeding the USG dry by Using up the finacial resources is futile; if you want to grab them by the balls, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[1s44c]

Split the US in order to fix it? Nasty but it's the only plan I've seen that stands any chance of breaking the republican/democrat alliance.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[1s44c]

It's not a hopeless situation, it's an almost hopeless situation.

Don't give up yet, the world has got over far worse.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[danbert8]

Vote any alternative! It doesn't matter. So long as your vote is counted and it is not going to one of the two major parties. If the third party vote manages to take even a measurable percentage of the total vote, politicians might take notice. Considering most presidential elections are decided by a percent or so, can you imagine what Dems and Repubs would do if third party candidates started getting even 3% of the vote? Sure, the third party won't get elected, but maybe some of their platforms and beliefs will be co-opted by the majors and change will start to happen.

As far as getting a third party, it's impossible with a first past the post voting system. It cannot mathematically happen. In the meantime, I will vote third party even if it throws away my second choice. In my case, I am a libertarian, but would prefer a Republican in many cases to a Democrat. Fuck the Republicans. I will make them lose every election for the rest of my life until they actually figure out how to cut spending. Democrats can freely run this country into the ground before I vote for a Republican because they "aren't a Democrat".

Re:... grow a pair ?

[danbert8]

Let's get rid of the seventeenth while we are at it. Having senators elected by popular vote just makes another house of representatives with more power and less accountability. Want to know why states rights don't exist? Because states haven't had a say in the government since 1912.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Anonymous Coward]

By telling you that you can only vote

That's how they did it actually. Any party that looks like it might become a contender will be usurped and infused with KochCash. Take the Libertarian party in the 1980's, they actually ran David Koch as their candidate for president one year. Or take the Tea party which by now has been globally recognized as nothing more than a hollow shell for GOP extremists to hide behind.

There are, historically have been, and only ever will be two relevant parties in US politics. The names change but the 2 party system remains the same. It's too expensive to compete against one of them, any anyone that shows promise gets bought as a hedge bet.

For the past 30 years the Libertarian party has been a hedge bet by the same people financing the GOP and was even founded by former GOP members that were dissatisfied with how liberal the GOP was becoming under Reagan. This is historical fact and brought up to point out the lengths gone to in ensuring a 2 party, and only 2 party, system remains in tact.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[pr0fessor]

Americans have invisible lines and crossing any of them would change the sentiment immediately from I am powerless to you will answer for what you have done. Sadly a president would need to have an affair with an intern or engage in some other personal and questionably moral act to get that reaction. As far as everything else that line is much farther away and things will get really bad before they are crossed.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[gordona]

to quote Jim Hightower, "If god wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates"

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Nadaka]

States rights are shit. The only states rights movement I have seen with any legitimacy has been the drug legalization movement. Every other states rights agenda is about tearing down equality and liberty by circumventing federal protection of the rights of citizens.

No, what we need is a mandate that neuters the ability of states to game the federal system.

1: eliminate the electoral college. Elect the president by a simple popular vote.
Why? so that the vote of every citizen matters. Right now, the only people who have a voice in electing the president are those who live in contested states. A Mississippi vote for R, D or anyone else doesn't matter in the least right now because the aggregate of the state will always be R, and the same applies to safe states for D. Enacting this change can increase voter participation and turnout.

2: eliminate congressional districts and replace with a party proportional by state house. What I mean by this: each state retains its number of seats in the house. But instead of being assigned by geographical distribution, they are split based the proportion of the vote won by each party.

Why? congressional districts allow gerrymandering, enforcing the binary party system and disenfranchising the individual vote of every citizen. By switching to a party proportional system, we can eliminate that and also empower 3rd party options, even ones that are geographically limited, such as the Texas secessionists.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Areyoukiddingme]

vote alternative ? which alternative ??

Pirate Party.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[superdave80]

States rights are shit.

Your attitude is exactly why the federal government has too much power now.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Anonymous Coward]

3: Synchronize the polls so they open and close at the same time nation wide. In virtually every presidential election the winner is decided and the loser has conceded before Hawaii's polls close. This literally means Hawaii has no say in deciding the president.

All polls nation wide should open at 7am on the east coast and close at 7pm in Hawaii. Running a 12 hour swing accounting for UTC-5 on the east coast and UTC-10 in Hawaii would enable a 17 hour window in which everyone could vote.

East coast opens at 7am local time and closes at midnight local time.
Central opens at 6am local time and closes at 11pm local time.
Mountain opens at 5am local time and closes at 10pm local time.
Pacific opens at 4am local time and closes at 9pm local time.
Alaska opens at 3am local time and closes at 8pm local time.
Hawaii opens at 2am local time and closes at 7pm local time.

Doing this would ensure everyone's vote mattered and that early to vote states didn't get to influence the voting decisions of later to vote states. Case in point, many people on the west coast that would normally vote for a D or an R will vote for third party or not vote at all if they feel confident their personal lesser evil is going to win. Incidentally, everyone voting free for all style like this would enable third parties to actually stand a chance as an independent that got ahead early in the day thanks to the efforts of a west coast state would have name recognition by the time midday voters came to the poles.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Nadaka]

No it is not. I am a proponent of individual and citizens rights. The state has no more right to infringe on those than the federal government.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[s.petry]

vote alternative ? which alternative ??

Does not matter as long as it's not for a Democrat or Republican candidate. I'd recommend however, that you find someone you trust with your children's well being and petition to get them on a ballot. Then, go out and tell everyone why you want that person in office. Ask them to tell people why they think it's a good idea too! Do this with as many offices as there are people that you trust! Ask other people to find trustworthy people and do the same. Warn them that people are going to smear your candidate to protect themselves. Teach them why voting main stream is bad. Quote Socrates and show them how ignoring his words have caused us to get to where we are today.

I get that it's not easy to realize that you _can_ make change. It's especially frightening since propaganda has told you how scary the world is when someone is not making choices for you. I can assure you that your fear is unwarranted, making choices and directing change is fulfilling to say the least.

they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them

As others have mentioned, you must start somewhere to start making change. Giving up never makes anything better. Start small, like City and State offices. Then move up and replace Congress and Senators. Look at it from a different perspective (though this is a leap from defeatism) and recognize that more people to replace makes any place you start a personal victory.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Nadaka]

I don't see this as quite as big an issue, but what the hell. I'll get on board with this as well.

More time to vote for everyone makes it harder for peoples right to vote to be infringed by employers refusing to make allowances to work schedules.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[budgenator]

I agree, and the states Governor should nominate the Senators for confirmation by the state legislaters; please not my sig.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you looked at getting a third party on the ticket? its damn near impossible unless you have a million dollars to bribe each state to put your name on the ticket in all the states, so at minimum you need 50 million dollars just for bribe money, and thats not even factoring the campaign money you will need to just stop the smear campaign that the republicrats will trow at you as soon as you are announced as a contender.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[superdave80]

I am a proponent of individual and citizens rights.

Why would you expect the distant federal government to guard your rights better than your state? Both are run by career politicians. But the problem with giving away power from the states to the feds is that instead of working with your local state legislature, you must now work with senators/representatives from dozens of distant states who you can't vote for!

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Nadaka]

The smaller the government, the more easily it can be corrupted and bullied into disenfranchising the people it is supposed to serve. To weaken the federal governments defense of rights in favor of the state is nothing less than a naked attack on the rights of the people. Every American has exactly the same rights, and there can be nothing more unequal than abdicating the defense of those rights to the states that seek to infringe upon them.

States Rights is a doublethink code word for individual states infringing on the rights of Americans when the federal government makes progress in recognizing and correcting unequal treatment. Now the states rightists are banning guns, trying to prohibit gay marriage, repeal the equal voting rights and ban abortion. None of these things make Americans more free.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Kookus]

None of those parties are ones that I think would improve the situation at all. We'd trade 1 set of problems for another.
I'd rather see scientists and professors (non-law) start running for office. Independents, no parties.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[superdave80]

Now the states rightists are banning guns,...

Yeah, because there has been absolutely no attempt by the federal government to limit gun rights...

...trying to prohibit gay marriage,...

Defense of Marriage Act ring a bell?

...repeal the equal voting rights...

Requiring something as simple as an ID to prove you can vote is hardly the same as repealing equal voting rights.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Fjandr]

And the larger the government, the less likely it can be saved once it inevitably becomes corrupt. I prefer a government that can be changed by the people to a government that cannot be changed by the people.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Fjandr]

The abolition of slavery began with the States, as did voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, and pretty much every other advancement of equality. They were eventually co-opted by the Federal government once the writing was on the wall that they couldn't be stopped. Just because States have done bad things does not mean States rights are not important.

Re:... grow a pair ?

[Fjandr]

Also, the current party system will never allow proportional representation. It would be possible to change a given State's voting system absent Federal tampering. With Federal tampering, no State will be allowed to do such a thing.

Re:Obama Did It

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it ever occurred to any of you crazies that talking about "illegal regime" and "unelected" makes anyone with a grasp of actual reality just stop reading?
I get that you don't like the guy, but you're never going to win people over to your cause when you're spouting complete and utter fantasy.

What does a police state look like?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

THAT is what a police state looks like.

Papers, please?

I would totally put it on eBay

[Anonymous Coward]

"slightly used computer sequestered for a brief period at Heathrow by nice people with GCHQ identity cards. Let us all know what you find." Buy It Now, $5.

Re:Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance fi

[Ralph Spoilsport]

good points, but I would add a question:

What makes you think it would be "online"?

The best insurance would be multiple hard drives in trusted hands.... Then the drives get duplicated, and the copies go up on pirate bay via Tor and other copies arrive on desks...

If the NSA wants to own the online, then, don't play online. The only way to win a game is to not play.

Re:Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance fi

[steelfood]

It sounds just like the old days when the cops are all paid off and you're alone up against the mob. Maybe the three-letter agencies adopted their playbook.

Too much power

[lapm]

Like old saying goes: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

UK is a dead communist country

[Anonymous Coward]

Inprisioning and destroying their own citizens or freedom advocates. While letting in useless lazy muslims, who should be charged with treason for their sharia fights.
UK is dead pathetic communist country.

UK = former Soviet block now?

[Skinny Rav]

Under communist rule maximum detention time was 24 hours, 48 in some countries. It was mainly a tool for harassing opposition. Thousands of people were being repeatedly detained, without any charges. Some were held for 24 hours, then released only to be captured 2-5 minutes later and detained for another 24 hours, rinse and repeat.

Sad to see the UK following such example.

jews?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying.

Obama sticking it to more and more people

[Anonymous Coward]

The saddest thing is that the biggest terrorist of them all is also the president of the USA. Dumb Americans keep electing worse and worse presidents.

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[LavouraArcaica]

How, exactly, one right destroys another right?
If there is a correlation, it would be quite the opposite: more rights for the minories means more rights (and more fights for rights) for everyone.

Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[aristotle-dude]

How, exactly, one right destroys another right? If there is a correlation, it would be quite the opposite: more rights for the minories means more rights (and more fights for rights) for everyone.

Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.

Are you serious that dense? Seriously? What were you doing to safeguard your actual "important" freedoms? Do you have a reading disability? Have you been living under a rock and not noticed how your freedoms were eroded bit by bit?

You fell for the rouse hook line and sinker. Are you too much of an ideology to not see that you were being fooled and distracted by a message of "hope and change"?

Tell me honestly, which would you rather have? The status quo of the 90's and 80's or the lack of freedoms you have now?

You don't get it, as soon as you make the constitution open for interpretation, the government takes that opening and rips everyone a new one. Seriously congrats for still not seeing the big picture. Anytime you open up a law or a contract for renegotiation you are putting your existing position at risk.

Continue ignoring the bigger problems citizen. Just worry about gay marriage, what is wearing, sports scores and other completely irrelevant popular culture crap. Freedom of speech? Freedom of the Press? Freedom of association? Freedom of religion? Who cares as long you get to watch the latest reality show about a gay gypsy weddding on TLC am I right? *SARCASM*

Again, nobody was bleeding to death and nobody was being imprisoned for not having a legal gay ceremony. I would think that there are more serious problems in society that need fixing like child poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and access to education but what do I know? Apparently fixing social problems that affect people of every race, gender and preference is less important than some dude being able to have a party to give a ring to another dude.

Obviously, my concern for the most vulnerable in society is wrong and that I should care more about some of the most affluent wanting to have a celebration and get a piece of paper instead.

So to hell with the constitution? To hell with freedom of the press? Is that want you want me to think?

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[aristotle-dude]

How, exactly, one right destroys another right? If there is a correlation, it would be quite the opposite: more rights for the minories means more rights (and more fights for rights) for everyone.

Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.

BTW. Did you notice that Obama is now screwing over a GAY journalist and his partner? He was accused of being a terrorist and he had his personal electronics stolen by the state. That is a violation of his most basic HUMAN rights. I see him as a HUMAN first and foremost and his orientation as irrelevant as far as how his rights as a human being were violated. I only see that characteristic as ironic given how Obama claims to be a champion of gay rights while denying the most basic human rights to him and everyone else.

Journalists are supposed to be protected by the first amendment but Obama's administration is trying to threaten a journalist's family. I feel the same outrage about how that man was treated regardless of how I might feel about his relationship with that other man. This goes beyond any debate of gays as such things affect not just a small minority but all journalists and all people.

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[geekymachoman]

Why in bold ? One would think that being a human being is something special.
Ever seen a dog and later a human get hit by a car ?

Anyway.. you don't have freedom/rights, you have owners. I like how George Carlin quotes are showing to be true 15 years later.

Terrorist Law is FOR preventing Terrorism

[bussdriver]

Everybody with a brain said the terrorism laws were going to be ABUSED. This is just another example of abuse of those powers. There should be legal grounds to retaliate against such blatant abuses - clearly the reporter is not a terrorist in any way.

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[aristotle-dude]

Apparently he is a journalist but he is also a human being so he has human rights that stem from the fact that he is a human being.

The terrible truth about these sorts of "laws"

[korbulon]

When it's convenient for the government, we all become terrorists.

One of the foundations of a liberal democracy is the rule of law. Without it, we are subject to the whims of petty tyrants and vindictive idiots.

Re:Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance fi

[rtfa-troll]

Interesting. So lets assume GCHQ/NSA already know what the insurance procedure is though not full details. They clearly went far enough to trigger something, but not to trigger a full release. Maybe this was a probe for more information about the insurance data?

Re:Only Obama is the terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you forgetting about the rest of the U.S. government, the two previous governments, the people in charge of several government agencies and the members of Congress that approved all these crazy laws?

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.

That's because it was a fallacy - a non sequitur. They might as well have blamed rights being "striped away" (presumably flattering horizontal stripes, all part of the gay agenda) on say, rogue elephants piloting jets laying down chemical contrails, or unexpected solar flares boosting democratic votes through the cunning use of magnets. I'd warrant that drooling nutcase with just as much ability to reason beyond their own bigotry as if it had been.

Mirandized?

[jerzy.kaltenberg]

"David Miranda was stopped by officers and informed that he would be questioned under the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual" " you have the right to wear fruit on your head. you have the right to be represented by a transvestite you have the right to dance the cha-cha"

Re:Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance fi

[oobayly]

Not a bad theory, apart from the fact that Glenn Greenwald received a phone call - from a "security official at Heathrow airport.", only identified by his number 203654 - that

[his] partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."

They are getting nervous

[Anonymous Coward]

This proves that NSA and the commercial powers behind it are getting nervous.
Acting desperately like this, not caring about appearances anymore... they are really wounded.

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention span is limited, attention given to bullshit issues such as gay rights or abortion rights takes away from real issues.

And another terrorist plot thwarted!

[Anonymous Coward]

You wonder why they don't brag more about them apart from telling you how many they thwarted?

"Loss" of property?

[Anonymous Coward]

The single most obvious problem was the loss of property.

For many of us the contents of our portable devices are how
we make a living. Their loss is not just a casualty loss but an
arbitrary tax on an individual and in some cases on an employer.

I can ill afford to have my digital life stolen. And I can ill afford to
have large capacity cloud storage that can also be stolen
and taken off line with a FISA letter.

Given the length of time this individual was detained copies of
his devices could be made. Based on that there is no reason I can
see to not return them.

SUMMARY: grand theft.

He'll get them back and would be well-advised never to use them any more anyhow. You don't need 9+ hours to make 1:1 copies of devices. You need that amount of time (or, as it were, more) to tamper with them.

Re:Greenwald is a crook

[GameboyRMH]

You do realize that Snowden was the one who broke his own anonymity, right?

Turn About

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that is going to do is cause groups like Anonymous to ramp things up even more.

I dont believe much of what Snowden says

[peter303]

He is fighting for his life. He'll say things that he thinks will buy him more time form his handlers/captors.

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[aristotle-dude]

Attention span is limited, attention given to bullshit issues such as gay rights or abortion rights takes away from real issues.

Bingo. LavouraArcaica, is so focused on their ideology that they fail to see the misdirection going on right in front of them. They fail to see even what this story represents. It represents an encroachment on the fundamental rights of everyone.

Land of the Free... um, anyone read the OP

[whitroth]

If you had, you might have noticed it occurred in the UK, not the US....

                    mark, wondering when the LibDems will grow something and quit the coalition

fucking gross homos

[Anonymous Coward]

46 and 28? You filthy pedophile butt phaggot.

Your Rights when Stopped in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

What to do if you are stopped, detained, or questioned, by security services while travelling or at any UK port under Schedule 7 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

anonymous

[globaljustin]

Snowden was the one who broke his own anonymity

Doesn't make a difference on Greenwald's end. Either way my criticism stands.

Both Snowden and Greenwald have said they planned this out for months. No where, in any discussion or public statement, have they ever indicated that Greenwald told Snowden of his options.

Snowden and Greenwald are doing this for their own selfish reasons and you don't have a shred of proof otherwise.

Here's another piece of evidence: Snowden's revelations were already known **IN 2006** read it and weep:

www.yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

FTA:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime.

All Snowden did was reveal top secret information about the names of the different programs....NOT WHAT THEY DO IN SUBSTANCE

Remember all the fuss about the Patriot Act? We *all* know how much the Bush admin did to trample our privacy post-9/11.

Making Snowden's revelations heroic and groundbreaking requires some art and a bit of self-delusion....

Same with defending Greenwald's journalism choices...

To falsify my contention think of this: If Greenwald *had* done the right thing, it would be part of their narrative. Greenwald or Snowden both would talk about it. We would have *some* evidence, in all the talk of why they did this and their thought process and contacting the documentary filmaker woman...on and on...

If they had done the right thing intellectually and professionally we would have heard about it.

Snowden is a troll...Greenwald is his flamebait amplifyer, and the non-tech media are the fuel for the fire

No one, and I repeat no one has tried to counter my evidence...i just get modded 'troll'...but no one offers a response

Smart and Well-Informed People

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the smart and well-informed people did this it would make a difference

Dear Sir,

Would you kindly telling us where to locate those "Smart and Well-informed People" ?

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[Anonymous Coward]

This comes up so often that it's worth addressing:

There are no "special rights" attached to "being a journalist". Not one. Not in Britain, nor in the USA. Anything a "journalist" can do, is something that can equally well be done by any private citizen who knows how to read and write, and that citizen will be covered by exactly the same laws as the journalist. There may be rights attached to acting as a journalist. But that depends entirely on what you're doing, not who you are or who you're paid by.

If you think about it, anything else would be "regulating the press", and therefore unconstitutional in the US.

The British government has (very recently) made moves to change this situation, but those have been bitterly opposed by the press itself, and haven't yet become law.

Re:The irony. Gay Journalist fighting Obama.

[aristotle-dude]

Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.

That's because it was a fallacy - a non sequitur. They might as well have blamed rights being "striped away" (presumably flattering horizontal stripes, all part of the gay agenda) on say, rogue elephants piloting jets laying down chemical contrails, or unexpected solar flares boosting democratic votes through the cunning use of magnets. I'd warrant that drooling nutcase with just as much ability to reason beyond their own bigotry as if it had been.

Congrats on looking away while all of your most important rights as a human being and citizen were striped away. You have the attention span of a gnat. You were busy looking at the distraction instead of the main event.

Sad

[Roger W Moore]

Parliament didn't even listen to it at the time it was published so why would they 400 years later?

Re:Not a journalist, so not protected...

[Anonymous Coward]

he is also a human being so he has human rights that stem from the fact that he is a human being.

That simple fact seems to be a really challenging thing to understand for many in these days.

a massive drive

[KingBenny]

to have everyone you dont like fired im sure of that