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."
Land of the Free(*).
*Conditions may apply.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..
They're bad people.
The People should act now, in their sovereign powers.
"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."
Ezekiel 23:20
Even if he gets them back, would you trust a device that has been alone with a spook?
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.
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.
He travelled with a laptop, phone and games consoles? What did he have ? A Wii and a PS2 to use on the plane?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.
Privacy is terrorism.
Some assembly required.
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.
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...
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.
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.
According to this release, David Miranda is a Guardian employee. Anyone know if that's right, or a reporting glitch?
All your ghosts are just false positives.
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.
So what are you willing to do about it, other than complain on slashdot?
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.
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.
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.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Papers, please.
Brought to you by the same people who entertained you with "Destroyed the Village to Save It" and "Fighting for Peace".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"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.
Why did you bother narrowing the scope of your subject line?
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.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
Silence is a state of mime.
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 "
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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?
"Do you want to see my papers?"
"No need, sir."
"But, I could be anyone!"
"No, you couldn't, sir."
And expect more of them as the world capitalist political-economic crisis deepens.
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 ??
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.
Papers, please?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"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.
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.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Like old saying goes: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
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.
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
"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"
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."
You do realize that Snowden was the one who broke his own anonymity, right?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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
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:
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
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Parliament didn't even listen to it at the time it was published so why would they 400 years later?
to have everyone you dont like fired im sure of that
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?