Slashdot Mirror


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."

25 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Update the constitution by fey000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Land of the Free(*).

    *Conditions may apply.

    1. Re:Update the constitution by compro01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Update the constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    3. Re:Update the constitution by AxeTheMax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Update the constitution by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Update the constitution by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Update the constitution by Teun · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    7. Re:Update the constitution by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Update the constitution by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    9. Re: Update the constitution by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Update the constitution by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:Update the constitution by niftymitch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    12. Re: Update the constitution by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. Re:Waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. They took his electronic devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  4. "Partner" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:"Partner" by Psyborgue · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:"Partner" by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:"Partner" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Ok, this is why Wikileaks released insurance file by colordev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Not a journalist, so not protected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. As an American ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 !
  8. ... but if everything does this ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: ... but if everything does this ... by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  9. UK not US by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?