Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK High Court Gives OK To Investigation of Data Siezed From David Miranda

Posted by timothy on from the moving-the-goalposts-and-boiling-the-frog dept.

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."

33 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. It is almost as if... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:It is almost as if... by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much does the frog in the warming pot push back?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:It is almost as if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently, quite a bit:

      "As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. "

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

    3. Re:It is almost as if... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Presumably the insurance files recently released contain all that data and more. If they decide to brand Miranda a terrorist or start attacking journalists as a matter of course the password will be released. If they were acting in the interests of national security they would be negotiating and trying to reconcile their actions with the public, while effecting some real change and transparency.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:It is almost as if... by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

      The gigantic idiot was carrying the encryption key, written down, on his person.

    5. Re:It is almost as if... by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      Presumably the insurance files recently released contain all that data and more. If they decide to brand Miranda a terrorist or start attacking journalists as a matter of course the password will be released.

      From the government bureaucrat perspective, that sounds like extortion, and the government will not negotiate with terrorists or extortionists. The standard government response to this situation would be a completely disproportionate attack on the perpetrator and anyone who has had a conversation with the perpetrator. Potentially out to 2 degrees of separation, to make very certain that no one is willing to touch the next "whistle-blower" data set.

      The public don't care. Half of them believe Miranda is a terrorist just because he was stopped under a terrorism law, and the police mean well. Even if the public do care, then trumping up some charges allows the government bureaucrats to defend themselves with a "tough on crime" stance. If there's even one classified document one Miranda's devices, even some part of the Bradley Manning dataset, then they can legitimately pursue state secrets or 'communication of material to the enemy' charges and expect the letter, if not the intent, of those laws to have been soundly violated.

  2. Who is really endangering agents' lives? by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Who is really endangering agents' lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't showing the public what "endangered" or whose lives were actually endangered. We are suppose to just believe them. The government lost the data. They can't ever get it back. It's a mute point to say that this data on his drive endangers peoples lives. It's already lost. It isn't going to be undone. If they are going to fix this they would pull there agents out of whatever situations they are in. The government was the one who endangered these peoples lives and those who took it upon themselves to work for the government in the ways in which they do.

      If it does endanger lives. Well- good. Maybe it'll teach people working for the government is dangerous and stupid. Putting your life in danger for money is not a bright move. It's one thing when your fighting for a cause. But that isn't what these agents are doing.

      The only people I'd have respect for are those who are doing something to stop this shit. David Miranda, Julian Assage, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, rebels, terrorists, and others. I might not agree with each and every one's cause but at least they have one which is more than I can say for anyone working for a major power in the world.

    2. Re:Who is really endangering agents' lives? by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      By definition, one of the perks of being an "agent" is the danger. So, i ask, are we to jail the agent's boss for endangering his life?

  3. Privacy is obsolete. Transparency is the battle. by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  4. Without restraint by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Without restraint by ian_billyboy_morris · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the UK this week our Prime Minister lost the vote to bomb Syria because MPs from all sides (even his own party ) rebelled due to the strength of public opinion. The last time a PM lost a vote to go to war was the US war of independence. Democracy can work in the age of the Internet.

    2. Re:Without restraint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      People were complacent in the 80's and 90's too, before the internet. So your scapegoating of the internet is merely a strawman. You should have expanded your scope.
      I think it has been a systematic desensitizing through all media.
      Mainstream media sensationalizes everything so that we aren't capable of fighting for one specific thing. OWS kind of proved that.

      So those of us who would have been the most revolutionary are tugged in too many directions by their own resolve. Meanwhile those of us who would join a movement but never start one come to the conclusion that its too messed up to do anything about. The leftovers end up being people who like the current system, or at least think that it could work given the right circumstances.

  5. Guilty! by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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

    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.

  6. State Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gee, how short people's memories are these days.

    This is how the Cheka started. Countering counterrevolutionary terrorism by becoming state terrorists.

  7. Endangering or possibly endangering...? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Big difference. Former requires probability and evidence. Latter is an invitation to a fishing expedition.

  8. No political activism? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:No political activism? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What did OWS achieve? Is or was that achievement compatible to the achievements of the 60's and 70's in the US?

        I know there were other political activism periods in other countries but I'm not intently familiar with them. So let's see, in the 1960's, we saw the activism pass civil rights legislation (regardless of if you agree with it, was pretty significant) and in the 1970's, we saw protests that changed how parties selected presidential candidates, we saw the ending of the Vietnam war largely because of political activism, we saw some bad changes too like free speech zones being created to contain the Vietnam war protesters on college campuses that were instituted at political conventions in the 1980's by the democratic nations convention (DNC).

      I must be missing something here because I do not see the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests achieving anything other then turning some parks into a camp ground for a while and irritating the locals to the point they sent the police in to remove them. Even if we look at other recent political activism, we find them largely ineffective for the most part. Abortion activist, whether pro choice or pro life seem to irritate people more then anything. Laws regarding abortions are passed by the same people who supported them for years. Gun rights and gun bashers in modern times are about the same, the largely liberal states seem perfectly fine with taking your gun rights while the more conservative states seem to be perfectly fine with encouraging you to carry loaded weapons (concealed carry laws). About the only political movement that has been largely successful is the gay marriage and they fought their battles in the schools training little kids to be tolerant and accepting of them and in the courts instead of political activism on the streets (I guess they notices the "We're here and queer and in your face" approach was hurting them more then helping). Perhaps the old activism isn't people setting out complaining but in finding compassionate judges willing to construe the constitution in your favor and politicians willing to ignore the will of the people who pass laws by referendum and refuse to defend them in courts.

    2. Re:No political activism? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What did OWS achieve?

      It brought popular recognition to the idea that we don't have a democracy because the richest 1% are running the country.

      We can thank the Canadian left for coming down here and showing us how to do it.

      Now it's up to us. If you don't like the idea of owing $50,000 or $100,000 in non-dischargeable college loans, or paying twice as much for health care as they do anywhere else in the world and still going bankrupt, or having the Republicans attack your Social Security retirement benefits, or shutting down government services with sequesters, or spending trillions in wars like the one in Iraq, or losing your constitutional rights to free speech and freedom from arbitrary searches, or working in minimum-wage, non-union jobs that don't pay enough to live on, then you have to do something about it.

      It took the conservatives 30 years to destroy the country (starting from Ronald Reagan's presidency). It's going to take a long time to bring it back. Maybe we never will. It's not easy fighting billionaires. But maybe we will.

    3. Re:No political activism? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I must be missing something here because I do not see the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests achieving anything other then turning some parks into a camp ground for a while and irritating the locals to the point they sent the police in to remove them.

      It wasn't the locals. It was a nation-wide crack-down coordinated by the FBI and DHS all with the banks at the lead.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

      Maybe the reason Occupy didn't really cause any immediate change is because they were the first social movement in the US to face wide-scale, modern techniques of repression backed by essentially unlimited funding.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:No political activism? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Peaceful American protesters in the 1960s *normally* didn't have to worry about heavily-armed forces showing up expressly to force them to leave, spraying them (even if they were sitting still) in the face with pepper spray, instigating fights, or seizing the cameras/phones of anyone (including journalists) they saw recording the incidents. The media also was still making an attempt back then to give accurate reports to the American public, and not using propaganda tactics to turn the public against the protesters by painting a wildly-inaccurate picture of who was protesting or what they believed in.

      You should revisit this a bit. The national guard was routinely called out to break up protests. the police routinely unleashed attack dogs on them, they used high pressure fire hoses and instead of spraying pepper spray, they lobbed military grade tear gas into crowds. Ever hear the song "4 dead in Ohio"? It's about the result of one of these attempts to break a protest up where the national guard shit and killed 4 students at Kent state University. Cameras were routinely broken and taken from journalists, about the only thing in this comment that is literally true would be the taking of the phones and the reporting.

      Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for what my parents' generation managed, and even chose my college in part because of it. But the police back then knew that the media wasn't under government's thumb yet, so any brutal behavior would be accurately reported to the public and turn it in favor of the protesters much, much faster than happened.

      Not really, the government just called the protesters hippies and commies, draft doggers, and drug crazed lunatics and the public generally accepted the abuse of them on those grounds. When they would go to arrest a protester, they would walk up to them and start beating them with a baton and force them to the ground while handcuffing them. This often happened after tear gas was used unsuccessfully to disperse crowds. People were maimed, injured and even killed in these protests and the public largely saw it as "they had it coming" for not following the cops directions. That is a difference between then and now. Another difference is they had a cohesive message. This message was to end a war, to treat people of color and women the same as white men. Ask a dozen OWS what their grievances was and you got a dozen different answers with most of them appearing ridiculous.

    5. Re:No political activism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most educated people were never under the disillusion that we were a democracy. We are a republic that uses democracy as part of the process to select the people who "represent" all of us. That 1% is included and our representative's jobs are to help ensure we can make money and earn a living. That also includes the 1% who seem to be able to do it more and better then the rest of us. Anyways, what you see as the 1% running the country is smoke and mirrors exaggerated due to your inabilities. I have those same inabilities but I'm not under any illusion that something is owed to me that is being possessed by the 1%.

      I hate to break it to you, but social mobility in the US is lower than anywhere else in the developed world. This means that, with very few exceptions, the reason you are a member of the 1% is because you were born into that class. Born into that class, so your parents could send you to private school, to after-school tutoring, or at least one of the few good public school systems. Born into that class, so your parents could pay most of your college costs, allowing you to start life free of crushing debt. Born into that class, so the people you know and the language you use let you fit into the culture at the top of business and corporate structures.

      We'll hold up and laud the dozen or so people who do manage to pull themselves out of the gutter, but the opportunities available to the 99% pale in comparison with the smorgasbord of options presented to the 1% or the 0.1%

    6. Re:No political activism? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      There was an incident after WW1 where veterans protesting in Washington over not getting their war bond money had their little tent city rolled over by tanks and set on fire. Yes, tanks used in Washingon against war veterans.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:No political activism? by liamoohay · · Score: 2

      Do you think that because the 1% is somehow born into the 1% or they were given something you weren't somehow makes them less worthy of being represented by the same government we are or that they do not deserve to enjoy the same possibilities to prosper that we do?

      They are certainly not less worthy of being represented by the same government. But the top 1% is vastly over-represented in our government. Setting aside the fact that their proportion in Congress is ten times greater than in the general population, the very rich are essentially able to pour unlimited funds into elections.

  9. Double or quits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Should be prosecuted for negligence... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Should be prosecuted for negligence... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It says 'part of.' Maybe that data is just a decoy.

      It wouldn't matter though. In the UK, police have authority to demand a password - refusal is a criminal offense under the RIP act. So even if the password were not on a convenient piece of paper, the police would simply ask for it - then start jailing Guardian staff until they get it.

    2. Re:Should be prosecuted for negligence... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      You would not believe how common something like that is. In fact, most offices will have at least one if not more desks with most of the passwords to not only the computers but banking and other sites written down somewhere and placed within easy access to the user. Generally, they are taped to the side of one of the desk drawers (because sticky notes on the side of the monitor is so unsafe) or printed on a paper shoved under the desk mat.

      The problem is that good passwords are hard to remember and unique passwords make it even more difficult when you use them once or twice in a blue moon. Another problem is that competence is not always a requirement for some jobs. At most sites I administrate, we have a master folder located in one of the CEO's offices in a locked file Cabinet or safe. We pick the top dog's offices because they are watched pretty well by other employees (to see if the boss is around) and usually locked then they are out of the office. I once found the master folder containing everyone's passwords to log into all the system, everyone's email, most of the password protected websites used for business (excluding the banking which is kept elsewhere for security reasons) and all the databases on location just sitting at the receptionist desk because the telephone guy needed information to log into the PBX. I guess whoever got the file out didn't think of just getting the information needed and copying it. Instead, they handed him the entire folder and when he left, he gave it to the receptionist on the way out who left it sitting one the desk for two or three days before asking someone what to do with it. That someone replied to ask me when she saw me next.

      It doesn't matter if it is encrypted data, or whatever. If the person hasn't been trained to understand the concept of security or the purpose of keeping the information private/secrete/secure, they will likely do something extremely stupid with the passwords sooner or later.

  11. Democracy doomed? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. FBI docs revealing crackdown plan are online by hazeii · · Score: 3, Informative

    The actual FBI docs revealing this are available online.

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  13. Re:Privacy is obsolete. Transparency is the battle by Sique · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  14. Congratulations UK! by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  15. Re:miranda? by davester666 · · Score: 2

    Actually, in this case, under Schedule 7 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act, he MUST disclose whatever his captors want or he is liable to a summary conviction of up to 3 months in jail and/or up to whatever a level 4 fine is.

    18(1) and 18(2)

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

    And if you read further up, this process requires NO level of suspicion by the officer (no "He looked suspicious" or even "I had a gut feeling", it can be "She has big tits").

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!