Slashdot Mirror
UK High Court Gives OK To Investigation of Data Siezed From David Miranda
cold fjord writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "The high court has granted the Metropolitan police extended powers to investigate whether crimes related to terrorism and breaches of the Official Secrets Act have been committed following the seizure of data at Heathrow from David Miranda... At a hearing ... lawyers for Miranda said they had agreed to the terms of wider police powers to investigate a hard drive and memory sticks containing encrypted material that were seized on 18 August. Previously the inspection had been conducted on the narrower grounds of national security. Following the court ruling, the police will now be allowed to examine the material to investigate whether a crime of 'communication of material to an enemy' has been committed as well as possible crimes of communication of material about members of the military and intelligence services that could be useful to terrorists." Related:
Reader hazeii writes "The BBC are reporting that the files seized from David Miranda (as a potential terrorist — see the earlier Slashdot story) 'endanger agents' lives.' Given that Miranda (and other Guardian journalists) seem to have been exceedingly careful not to release anything that could actually damage national security, and that the source of this information is a 'senior cabinet adviser,' one wonders what exactly the point of this 'news' is."
It is almost as if they want to see just how far they can push. But that push back is going to be a bitch...
was he read his rights?
kyukyukyuk..
captcha: soviet.. how fitting
Frustratingly, it is actually possible for released information to endanger agents' lives. By using this as a pretext for searches when there's no real basis for thinking an agent's life is being endangered, it is they who endanger agents' lives, not the people whose data they search on that basis.
What are we to believe when, likely soon, they claim that some piece of data they "found" in Miranda's possession actually endangers someone's life? That the data actually endangers anyone? That it was actually on one of Miranda's drives? How would we know? This is a farce.
Like it or not, privacy is unenforceable. We can fiddle with our settings so they leak less data, but there is still lots of data given out, and leaking, just by having a cellphone, credit card, car, job, name and ID.
The battle now, is to end the privacy/secrecy for THEM. In other words, get gov't transparency, corporate transparency.
They won't give it up easy, their one-way information flow.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
There is ample evidence, historically, and in every country that has ever existed for any length of time, that the government's expansion of police powers will continue until the people fight back. When the cost of consolidating power exceeds the cost of political activism, that is where the balance lays.
In today's "internet culture", with instant gratification and a certain detachment from one's peers, there is no real political activism occurring in industrialized countries that are economically stable. This has meant a rapid expansion of police powers in virtually every one of the top 20 countries by GDP.
Bluntly, the internet may give us access to the knowledge of what's going on anywhere on Earth, our collective knowledge, and does it all nearly instantaniously, but all of this information has blunted our resolve. It has given rise to the idea that technical solutions to social problems are not only viable, but preferred. It has substituted direct social interaction for abstract social interaction.
It could be argued that the internet itself is the proximate cause of the current state of affairs; It has made people complacent and politically impotent.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He has Miranda rights.
Miranda is clearly guilty, then, as he certainly communicated embarrassing information to dirty red commie journalists.
Sadly, many Western governments are unable to carry out some actions they want to if the general public knows about them, simply because most people consider them immoral and unacceptable. They are, then, presented with a dilemma. They can stop doing things their electorate would find objectionable, they can try to eliminate the ability of the electorate to influence government, or they can lie about what they are doing and try to keep it secret. The third is impossible if people like Snowden are allowed to tell people what their government is doing on their behalf.
Gee, how short people's memories are these days.
This is how the Cheka started. Countering counterrevolutionary terrorism by becoming state terrorists.
Big difference. Former requires probability and evidence. Latter is an invitation to a fishing expedition.
In today's "internet culture", with instant gratification and a certain detachment from one's peers, there is no real political activism occurring in industrialized countries that are economically stable.
You mean Occupy Wall Street and similar movements didn't happen? Are not political activism? Countries where these movements were active, are not economically stable? And I don't think OWS is the only recent political activism, it comes in many shapes & forms. Am I missing something here?
They're playing double-or-quits, raising the threat to the Guardian in an effort to suppress further reporting. This law is under examination for MET's extreme over use of it, so MET pushes for even broader use of it.
That works on the Daily Mail, who are chicken shit scared. But the other non-Murdoch newspapers are expanding their reporting. So this isn't working. BBC was threatened with DA notices, and even they're reporting more about these leaks.
If you're not aware of it, MET is the police agency that gets GCHQ data feeds. It's the secret conduit by which GCHQ targets people for police prosecutions. Any evidence GCHQ provides is heard in court in secret, is not seen by the defendant, and cannot be challenged because it isn't revealed.
The argument for this is that is protects NSA intelligence gathering methods. Methods that are now public courtesy of Snowden and is clearly illegal mass surveillance. So they're covering up crimes of a foreign spying agency and their accomplices in GCHQ.
Mass surveillance is not legal, is does not matter whether it is GCHQ for NSA or STASI for KGC.
It certainly appears you are correct, speaking in a legal context. Privacy laws may exist, but those to whom it should apply obviously care fuck-all about them because the consequences for violating them are equally fuck-all.
But there are still steps we can take to enforce our own privacy. Encrypt your storage mediums, setup your own communication services like XMPP, install HTTPS Everywhere...
What we really need is a way to obfuscate communications metadata. Something that floods the lines with a continual stream, making random hops and terminating points. We need to make the haystack to massive to dig through. In other words, everyone should be using Tor, all the time. It might actually become usable if that were the case
I don't agree with the misuse of anti-terrorism laws in this case, but this is ridiculous:
a piece of paper with the password to part of the encrypted files was discovered along with the hard drive
Why? Why would you do that? What possible rationalisation could there be for writing the password down and keeping it with the encrypted data?
It's a pity there is no law against negligent custodianship of encrypted data, it might teach people to be more sensible.
keep moving the goal posts and eventual you may find something which is a nice little bonus but the real goal is to play for time until the next circus roles into town and distracts the plebs.
Democracy only works if those in power are committed to its preservation. Important policies and actions need to be discussed and public opinion allowed to influence final decisions. There is ample evidence that the U.S. and some other older democracies no longer really want their people involved in important decision making. They need to pay lip service to the concept. However, a combination of lies, secrecy and manipulation (partly by politicians themselves and partly by well funded PACs) ensure informed participation from the general population is next to impossible.
"Democracy" and "human rights" in these countries will no doubt remain for a long time as key justifications for very undemocratic foreign policies, but are well on the way to being dead in any meaningful sense.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
It's a case in point; the Occupy movement was smashed by the FBI and Homeland security, by infiltration and (almost certainly) involving illegal interception of communication. See How the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy for example.
All your ghosts are just false positives.
The actual FBI docs revealing this are available online.
All your ghosts are just false positives.
Stop these constant terror threats of broadcasting when the perfect weather for an attack will occur. It's insane!
You can't push back a turd. They'll have to accept that the truth eventually tends to come out and it will make them look rather bad and undemocratic.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
What does agent mean. Someone undercover in a foreign country or someone working 9-5 in a cushy desk job doing things the STASI would love to have done? My guess - the latter. The endangerment? The same way the STASI agents were endangered when the Berlin Wall came down.
Come on Mr President. Tear this wall down.
the police will now be allowed to examine the material to investigate whether a crime of 'communication of material to an enemy'
What enemy, you ask? Well, that would (generally) be the citizens and the alternative and independent media that hasn't been compromised or taken over.
The good? At least things are becoming clear; those who've had their heads buried in the sand for decades are starting to clue in that Fascism is, indeed, alive and well (and who its representatives might even be).
The bad? I'm afraid the only reason Evil is beginning to become confident enough to display its true colors (ahem, coloUrs) in such brazen fashion is due to the fact that it considers itself near its end game in its battle against you (yes, you) and the End (of anything remotely resembling life as you've known it) is Well Fucking Nigh(tm).
But go on and keep believing that this is nothing more than an incompetent and mindless beauracracy exhibiting a sense of self-preservation. "There's no agenda here, folks. Move on."
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Like it or not, privacy is unenforceable.
Like it or not, protection of your life is unenforceable. We can fiddle with our protection mechanisms, so they allow less danger, but there are still lots of dangers around.
Yes, protection of privacy is hard stuff, but that doesn't mean we should give up. Yes, we leak data, but that doesn't allow everyone else to collect those data and analyze it. Yes, we are vulnerable, but that doesn't allow everyone else to stick a knife into our body.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is that the rule now in the UK? Do y'all have an impeachment process for high court judges?
In the case faced here, I think they shall have used a one-time pad. For example you generate a one-time pad at home and keep an encrypted copy there, then when you are with the person with the confidential data you use the one-time pad on the data and write the result on a brand new storage device (and physically destroy the device on which was the pad you brought). Now, you can come back, and if you are captures not even under torture would you be able to help anyone decypher what you have with you. Only back home can you read the content again, and only you can do so even there. Some variations of that technique can be imagined, with pre-shared pads too, just NEVER use twice the same pad.
You are now a province of America. Don't let the shame overwhelm you now....
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
The battle now, is to end the privacy/secrecy for THEM. In other words, get gov't transparency, corporate transparency.
They won't give it up easy, their one-way information flow.
So, when you get them, what will you do with the nuclear missile submarine patrol routes, the list of intelligence agents abroad, the list of organized crime informants, the list of foreign spies being watched, and the encryption keys for the embassies in other countries? Those are some of the secrets the government holds. Are you and everyone in your city trustworthy enough to have and protect them so that the information remains confidential?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I assume that the Metropolitan police read Mr. Miranda his rights? since he does have counsel I guess he has been read his rights to remain silent and a right to a lawyer. Article reminds me of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) for some reason.
wonder if David Miranda and Ernesto Miranda are related.
as we choose to make it. Like anything in communal control, transparency, privacy, secrecy are all what we decide to make them.
The day they start wanting less secrecy is the day I start wanting less privacy.
No, in country A, these agents from country C are NOT protected secrets: they are criminals.
Is Assad allowed to keep the gas attack secret (if he has gassed other citizens) because you think that governments must be allowed to say what things can be made secrets and nobody is allowed to find out about them, even if they are not in or from that country?
Just so I can find out what you really think...
You're doing the same using older windows, you pot calling a kettle black moron. No wonder you ran away there. Your own piss poor tactic of using old Windows versions (nothing serious in them that couldn't be fixed manually or avoided by using another method) existed in Windows Server 2012, so you went after old XP. So if someone did the same to you, using older Linux models, you have a fit? Grow up loser. You failed.
"I think that the lesson here might be that if you're not on the very latest release of a Microsoft product, even if what you're running is still supported, you'll be low priority for security patches." - by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @11:09PM (#44667275)
from http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4117625&cid=44668899
26 vulnerabilities in Linux 2.6/3.0 core http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/ and here http://secunia.com/advisories/product/40714/ : Your tactics used against you were your undoing. You couldn't find bugs in Windows Server 2012 so you went after older XP. APK did the same to you with older Linux kernels only and found way more problems in Linux you can't fix, but he showed what to do with the old XP ones you noted, fixing them (or avoiding them by other means). You couldn't do the same for 26 security bugs in Linux. You fail.