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.
With the drives destroyed, and the leaks plugged, we can all get back to our normal lives under the new heightened levels of paranoia.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
And we've been wondering what that 350 GB "insurance file" from WikiLeaks was...
The point was crystal clear: the friend of my enemy will get no end of crap thrown at them. The Grauniad can expect more such visits in the future, as well as any other news organization who dares publish That Which Must Not Be Published.
John
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 those reporters in jail? Don't think so. You're going to have the step up the game U.K. to join the big boys.
Bonus points for all the cameras though.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can't stop the signal, Mal.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
They pretty much ensured that data dumping will ensue, on levels never before seen. It's going to be pretty damned interesting considering that Greenwald is a hell of a leftist, and is railing like never before.
Om, nomnomnom...
It really is amazing that we (ANZUS+UK+Canada) can lecture the rest of the world about the virtues and freedoms of democracy, chastise China for censoring the Internet and making up economic figures and pass laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (mandating whistle-blowing for corporations); while we are so openly censoring our "free" press.
I do expect a certain level of hypocrisy and self-serving behavior from our governments, but am I alone in noticing this has really stepped up a notch recently?
There's every chance they had good reason to act as they did but from the outside, to me, it seems like this was a wasted opportunity. Had they forced the government to bring them to trial it would have brought shone more light on both the NSA story and the problem of the erosion of freedom of the press.
Had The Guardian won, they would have the added benefit of setting some precedent for their countrymen.
Had they lost, we would at least know where we stand in terms of press freedom; better, in my mind, than the present situation, in which the rules don't seem to be fixed and government power is arbitrarily applied.
Saying the data is copied somewhere else seems like an avoidance of the principle of the matter.
They know there are offsite backups. This was intimidation, pure and simple.
The media gets dozens, hundreds, of documents. They slowly release them one or two at a time. Why? Not to make them easier for the public to digest. Not because they need to spend time reviewing them, writing articles, or gather sources. Not even because they enjoy being the gatekeepers of desired information.
No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip. The writers enjoy getting off on being the center of a public spectacle. You put a few articles out a week and you get more viewers. You keep stringing everyone along and keep those numbers up for more advertising revenue and to try to attract more subscribers. You keep your own name in the papers and get a higher profile for a book release. That's what this game is all about. Snowden leaked his information to people who are using it as leverage to manufacture news.
The reporters that Snowden contacted could easily release everything tomorrow. Total transparency. It would eliminate them being part of the story. But they get off on the attention. Glenn Greenwald wants to BE THE STORY. We've seen this repeatedly with Assange who comments on himself as often as he comments on the news. They don't want to report on some of the most relevant news and whistleblowing in the last decade. This is a chance for Greedwald to make a lot of money, a low of news appearances, some Real Time with Bill Maher, and maybe even a Howard Stern Show appearance. If he releases all of the documents then he's no longer important. His ego can't take that.
I know at Slashdot that people are upset when the news media focuses on Snowden and Greenwald not the major revelations that Snowden has given us regarding the U.S. government's total war on privacy. But this is not new territory for Greenwald. He loves being the center of attention. Look at his news appearances regarding this case. He talks about himself and his involvement far too much in my opinion.
I think that the U.S. citizenry has a right to know about the government's war on privacy. Show us everything. Be transparent the way Obama said he would be when he campaigned. Let us judge. Stop being the gatekeepers of information that you don't have a right to hide from us like the government did. Enough of the games. I can't take anyone in the media seriously anymore. If Greenwald and Snowden want less attention then give the world the information to help people combat the government's overreach.
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
Was that rather pointless and incompetent theater supposed to impress someone? I doubt the Guardian has been cowed by destruction of at most a few thousand dollars of equipment. And it shows that the UK is in bed with the US with this sort of spying.
Mordac the preventer
http://michaelsmith.id.au
...joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Anyone else think of the scene in Zoolander? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze3hthGRbRo
Did they really destroy a functional computer to destroy the drive? Could they not have removed the hard drive and destroyed just those parts that have any persistent data retention? Even including the optical drive would have been overkill-- eject the disk. What was the purpose of destroying perfectly good hardware? Just to be sure? Why not steam roller the remains and then incinerate them in an induction furnace? Where they worried about a secret compartment? Notes scribbled on the inside? What a bunch of clowns.
The UK has a lot of teeth in a lot of laws, for having a "gun" with you, for reading banned material online and if they so wish the full use of the Official Secrets Act.
The problem for the UK is the optics and methods of the Official Secrets Act.
If you use it in a sealed court setting, you admit you have a "spy" like situation and need a top cleared legal team. Any person facing that system is by default be facing a Star Chamber and gather world wide sympathy and much legal UK interest spins up fast.
If its in an open court, the defence and press goes to work on every detail and method. All in the open again over years. A situation most UK govs seem to want to avoid at any cost.
So you never "running afoul" of the Official Secrets Act. It is a legal tool to welcome staff into the system with a nice clearance level and hints at years in jail.
The UK would rather use other methods - if your connected to power/gov - no trial, pension but no more talking/leaks.
If your connected to codes/methods but have few friends - a public trial on other topics..
Other non court methods are also very legal in the UK.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So, basically, guys who are apparently stupid enough to think this actually accomplished anything are the ones we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to when they say they're adequately protecting our data when they vacuum everything up?
No wonder they say they need to gather up every available piece of data they can - they're not bright enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.
#DeleteChrome
Good old fashioned book burning internet style. Less flame but just as fun.
Utterly stupid. It's trivial to hide a microSD card, all you need is AES encryption and Saran Wrap. Just stash it under a rock, or up a tree, or in a hotel room. You've got 57 million square miles to choose from.
MAC addresses are invisible after the first router, unless you use IPv6 with insecure settings. So, no, they cannot be used without breaking into things.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As ambitious as it seems, this level of correction has happened several times in US history. I believe that these goals can be achieved if 3 conditions are met:
So far, Poitras and Greenwald have played Obama and the US Intelligence like a hooked trout. They have skillfully countered every attempt to divert or end the discussion. It looks like they have a chance of advancing reform of the US Executive branch. They may also help bring reform to England.
But now, I think we are seeing the beginning of more strategic responses from the US Intelligence community. I suspect that they are now trying to end the discussion by re branding Poitras and Greenwald as traitorous threats. This approach worked so well with Manning and Assange. Not only did they succeed in discrediting the messenger, they also turned the messenger into an external threat. Now, they can use 'Traitors' to justify Executive excess.
I suspect that the goals of US Intelligence are now:
If they can't shutdown or re-brand Poitras and Greenwald, then I expect the next step will be to create an immediate, external threat that requires an unbridled Executive.
I am praying for Poitras and Greenwald. We need their help. And their enemies are capable of doing terrible things.
A popular thing here on /. which the original poster did is to turn any story either about China doing something bad, or the US doing something bad in to a "Oh look at how bad the US is, they can't say anything to China!" or "OMG the US is worth than China/Russia, they are more free!" Or equally stupid shit like that.
In no way is China relevant to this. What's more, the idea that only if a nation is perfect that it could level any criticism at another is completely ludicrous.
It is just spin, just crap to try and hate on the US and allies for no particular reason. So the GP had a good point: China does some pretty bad shit, things that even the imperfect countries that are the UK and US might have an issue with.
If people want discussions of the problems with western governments to stay on topic, something I think is a good idea, then the first step is to stop dragging in China et al at every opportunity. What the US, UK, etc do is good or bad, right or wrong, regardless of what they say to China, regardless of how they compare to China, etc.
If you want to start playing the "compare and contrast" game, well then don't be surprised when others come back in kind.
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.
No need to release new leaks when they keep pulling stunts like this! What better news story could there be than new examples of neo-Orwellian boot stamping, modern-day book burnings.
Nice to know my grandparents and greatgrandparents bled in WWII so fascists like you could still be in power. Oh wait...
"But to others, the term "journalist" is but a ticket to fine dinings in posh surroundings, with important people"
Oh, dude, you have no idea of the realities of journalism. Too many movie cliches, I suspect. Any journalists out there who care to share their stories of copious lavish lunches with the rich and famous?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
the war on free press.
Privacy is terrorism.
Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which states :-
In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".
In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.
Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.
Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.
And as if to underline the point, the UK also gave us English defamation law, with this very attractive trait :-
So you can sue someone for defamation and make them bankrupt if they fail to prove what they said was true. Pretty nifty when you need to sue say, a newspaper exposing your scandals -just sit back and bleed them with legal fees while they scramble for evidence (which you've already buried, of course).
the Daily Mail is leading with some b0ll0x about some royal baby's first portrait photo... all across the front page... the Miranda detained in Heathrow news item is there, but buried under all sorts of rubbish about what various z-lister's had for their breakfast etc.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I think that generally things have pretty much been as they always have been, wild and chaotic. Accidents happen, disasters occur, people die etc.
What is different is this climate of fear over terrorism permeating our society, in no small part fanned by those in power. Understandably so -people ruled by fear are much easier to herd in the direction the powers that be want them to move. Since the terrorism scare began, overly broad and severely restrictive laws have been passed (Terrorism Act/Patriots Act), personal liberties infringed and sacrified in the name of safety (TSA is a good example), huge chunks of national budgets have been appropriated for defence all of which the government could not have done if the public had not been coerced into it by fear of terrorism.
One example of how this climate of fear has changed our world is (with utmost respect to the deceased) the death of Lee Rigby. Prior to 911 I doubt this story would be deemed remarkable -a story about a lone soldier stabbed by 2 (crazed?) men. What gives the story prominence now is the motive for the killing, i.e. revenge for Muslims. And we have people like the Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair fanning the flames by calling the attack part of the broader "problem within Islam."
Laura Poitras for several years has been subject to extraordinary harassment, intimidation and searches when travelling. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/
These goons destroyed private property, and the Guardian is entitled to compensation. The big win in litigating this would be making the goons squirm in depositions. "Officer Asshat, what did you seek to accomplish by destroying the equipment in question? Are you stupid enough to believe that you were destroying the only copy of the embarrassing material, or were you just making an infantile display of pique?"
The Guardian could get months of material out of that..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't have an apply laptop, but the pc ones I have access to it's stupid simple to remove the hard drive. Only a complete imbecile would think it's necessary to destroy the computer to destroy the data. Then again, destroying the hard drive would only get rid of one copy of something you can be sure there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there now.
It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.
Though it would be hard to deny the incredible decline in quality of 'journalism' over the last several decades.
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
to show that they are powerful
"Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
There seems to be a misconception here. Congress broadly authorized the programs, and the intelligence committees get regular updates. The programs operate under FISC orders, which provides some form of judicial oversight. Either body could shut the programs down. The House did not have the votes to defund a couple weeks ago, extremely unlikely it would have passed the Senate anyway.
So given that these bodies have not shut the programs down, the only logical conclusion to me is that all three branches are OK with it. Yeah, some individual legislators are making hay, and there was one denial from FISC, but as a whole the bodies haven't really used their power to curtail the activities.
This doesn't magically make the programs legal, good, or right.
If we keep oppressing the UK this way they might dump all the tea into the Boston harbor or something.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
to show that they are powerful
"Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.
laptdog: A combination laptop computer and lapdog.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I don't have an apply laptop, but the pc ones I have access to it's stupid simple to remove the hard drive. Only a complete imbecile would think it's necessary to destroy the computer to destroy the data. Then again, destroying the hard drive would only get rid of one copy of something you can be sure there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there now.
It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.
apply() laptop: A computer that excels at running code for functional languages.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.
It worked, I think that Laptop is scared and will never hold a harddrive again...
Be seeing you...
Absolutely. It seems all the posts blasting the 'President' for this stuff people intending to blast the President himself rather than the process. Yes, The US Congress (legislative branches) have authorized all of these programs, repeatedly. And people will continue to vote for them, and even I will; because the alternatives are FAR worse.
I am willing to exchange a little bit of my personal privacy for the rights for gays to marry. That's just how it goes. It's a trade off I accept.
It is on the Reuters front page though.
Which is even more telling of CNN and MSNBC. It was a conscious decision to not report it.
"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."
That may be, but I fathom that the UK's policy is: it may leak, but it won't leak from the UK.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Punish and intimidate, seriously? You know how cheap hard disk drives are, this is a company, a Friday team lunch costs way more than those (already backed up drives). It was a seriously stupid, completely and utterly pointless thing to do. The government spent more money sending those officers there than those drives cost. This smells more like the rebuke was going back in the other direction to the politicians rather than anything targeted at the Guardian. Those British agents purposefully went out of their way to make the UK government look bad in it's sucking up to the US government.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen