Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Destroys Guardian's Snowden Drives
An anonymous reader writes with revelations that the UK government has been pressuring the Guardian over its publication of the Snowden leaks for a while, and that it ultimately ended with GHCQ officials smashing drives of data to pieces. From the article: "The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: 'You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.' ... one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred — with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. 'We can call off the black helicopters,' joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro."
The paper had repeatedly pointed out how pointless destroying the data was: copies exist, and all reporting on the Snowden leaks is already being edited and published from locations other than the UK.
He is referring to the creator of the "Innocence of Muslims" youtube movie. He was arrested for parole violations, and in fact was arrested only after voluntarily turning himself in because he feared for his safety.
The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?
The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie.
Are you talking about Nakoula Basseley aka Sam Bacile?
He got busted for violating the terms of his probation, pled guilty to 4 charges, and accepted 1 year in jail + 5 years of probation.
I don't think this is the example you should have used.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Story about the arrest.
Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...
His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let's go ahead and look at some of the "truth" you posted in response to another AC:
Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...
Except there were widespread protests and riots across the middle east in general, with the worst of it being in Egypt, not Libya. The initial statements from the US government mistakenly identified these protests/riots as the cause of the Benghazi consulate attack -- but within 48 hours of the attack they had updated information and had informed the American public that it was, in fact, an organized and planned terrorist attack.
His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.
You're right; he had nothing to do with the attack itself. But let's look at the rest of your version of events. First: He was arrested on probation violations on September 27th, 2012, weeks after the Obama administration had already announced that the Benghazi consulate attack was orchestrated by terrorists. The idea that the initial arrest was part of a cover-up is, thus, a load of bullshit. Second: He was released earlier this month, after serving almost the full length of his 1 year sentence (and almost 1 year after the Obama administration's announcement that Benghazi was a terrorist attack). Thus, the idea that his release is because everyone knows it was a terrorist attack now is absurd -- everyone knew it was a terrorist attack the day he was arrested. The explanation for why he is out of prison somewhat early is the same reason countless prisoners are released early -- good behavior and release to a halfway house.
Now let's go ahead and take a look at the post to which I am replying.
With Benghazi, it was obvious it was a terrorist attack from the start but the government blamed a video for scores of deaths and embassy attacks.
(a) On what basis was it obvious that it was a terrorist attack? Are you asserting that all of the protests and riots across the entirety of the middle east and northern Africa were orchestrated as some massive terrorist plot to cover for a single consulate attack? And if so, do you have any actual evidence of this? And if you do have evidence, was this evidence widely available (which would be necessary for it to be "obvious" that it was a terrorist attack) "from the start"? Alternately, if you are not asserting that the widespread protests/riots were orchestrated as part of any plot, on what basis can you possibly assert that a single consulate attack on a day in which dozens of people were killed in protests/riots was not simply an extension of said protests/riots?
(b) Scores of deaths -- again, do you mean to imply that you believe the entirety of the protests/riots were orchestrated by terrorists? There were only 4 deaths in the consulate attack.
(c) Embassy attacks (plural) -- What embassies? There was a single consulate attacked, and no embassies. You can't even get very basic facts straight, yet we are supposed to believe your grand conspiracy theory is the real story here.
Most people now know also they let people die there because they didn't want any hiccups in the undergoing operation to ship 400 Libyan missiles to Syria... but that's a story for another day.
Perhaps if you seek psychiatric help that day will not come.
A publicity stunt. If WikiLeaks had the files, they would have gone public the next with as many as they could vet, and they wouldn't have been as responsible or through as the guardian. Also the timing on that is wrong, they posted that file ages ago.
Since when does two days ago equal ages? https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/posts/561927090509074. Its not a publicity stunt it just what it says it is insurance against Assange Snowden Greenwald Poitras etc being killed or disappeared to gitmo. If the US tries anything the key gets released and the stuff they have kept back because it is to dangerous inflammatory get published to the world. Could it be a bluff yes, is it likely not a bluff if you read the even the docs that have been released have been voluntarily redacted by Greenwald and co. Its You screw us we screw you worse device.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
You omitted a few facts:
1. He was previously busted in the 90s for making crystal meth.
2. The production of the film itself was an exercise in fraud and deception--many scenes were edited/spliced together in a manner that bore little or no relation to the scenes as they had been shot, and a large portion of the film was overdubbed with dialogue completely different to what was actually spoken by the actors. The cast and crew have all since gone on record to disavow the finished product.
3. The dissemination of the video on YouTube, etc., certainly did spark protests, many of them violent, by Muslims in a number of countries (with some egging on by an extremist cleric or two). Which is hardly surprising, since the version that was shown was clearly intended to offend Muslims in most ways imaginable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam.
CAPTCHA: irrigate
Actually there are no safeguards. The law states that it can be applied without any suspicion that a person is a terrorist and that refusing to answer questions is a crime. The powers granted under that law can be used on anybody for any reason whatsoever. The law is that broad. The police didn't abuse the law. They simply followed a law that had its abuse built in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133
-Mr. officer, can you... ...
-National security!
-Yes, but please explain how...
-National security!
-I can't see how this qualifies as
-National security!
(journalist gives up, goes to speak with MP instead)
-Mr. representative, can you expl...
-National security! Trust us, we know best!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
It's a long running joke. The Guardian is known for making a lot of typesetting errors so often gets called that. Similarly the Daily Telegraph is known to be very strongyl aligned to the Conservative Tory) philosophy so is nicknamed the Torygraph.
An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b) [i.e. is a terrorist]
Completely and utterly offtopic, way to go moderators.
This story is about the destruction of hardware belonging to the Guardian,
in the Guardian's basement.
It has nothing to do with any kind of seized property - a fact you would know if
you had read even just the summary before going off on a tangent.
You misread it. It takes practice to read legal documents and you made a common error. You missed the 'or'. Case (a) is in use right now, but it has a 7-day clock. Case (b) or (c) would be used if they want to hold something indefinitely.
My suggestion for reading legal documents would be to be very, very careful about punctuation and ands/ors. Highlight or underline them if you need to.
This is a different case. The destruction of hard drives was done by GCHQ at the Guardian UK offices well before David Miranda was detained by the police. There is no evidence that any possession of Mr. Miranda has been destroyed. But when he gets them back, I'd assume that they were loaded with spyware.
This is an insanely broad law. Look at Section 2:
Power to stop, question and detain
2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b). (i.e. a terrorist)
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if--(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and (b) the examining officer believes that the person's presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived [at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
What does this mean? At a port of entry the cops can detain you without suspicion to determine if you might possibly be a terrorist. Basically, they can detain you for any reason whatsoever.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Definitely. There are few good sources of real journalism. That doesn't mean though that it's all about fancy meals - it's just a shift in the market. Take The Sun in the UK - it's got the largest circulation, and is only a newspaper in the tits and sport sense. The Mail is more upmarket - i.e. no tits, but any excuse to show a teenage girl in a short dress stepping out of a car. The Sun generally keeps people cheery. The Mail is the newspaper for angry middle-aged white people, who don't know why they're angry, so the Mail is happy to give them some reasons for their simmering rage. The Guardian's one of the better ones, but personally I'd go for Private Eye, The Guardian, BBC News and The Economist.
There remains good journalism out there - it's just not found alongside "Su, 18" and her smashing pair.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I think destroying the hardware implies that the hardware was seized (even if momentarily), I don't see the Guardian giving the hardware to them voluntarily.
It is what it is.