Slashdot Mirror
David Cameron Wants the Guardian Investigated Over Snowden Files
dryriver writes "The Guardian reports: 'British Prime Minister David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. He made his proposal in response to a question from former defense secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden. Speaking at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said: "The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security."'"
Destroyed their copies of some files, certainly, but it's not like others don't have the files too.
he must be another one that thinks the internet is a series of tubes and "uses the googles"
saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden.
Anybody else who has a problem with understanding just where Cameron is seeing double standards applied?
The phone hacking by the newspapers targeted specific individuals.
Specific individuals have a right to privacy.
An organisation claiming to act on behalf of a group of individuals should not have privacy from those it claims to represent.
There's no double standard in exposing phone hacking by newspapers and then exposing phone hacking by the government.
The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had
Were the people politely asking also holding a wrench by any chance?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Whilst growing up as a teen in the '80s, we took the piss out of the Soviet Union and eastern European peoples for the whole "Papers, please..." thing. It looks like the western world is not far off from this.
National security and putting people in danger seems like a smoke screen at this point.
FTA: " former defence secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden."
He's claiming they are following a double standard by revealing secret illegal spying on people, and then revealing secret illegal spying on people again.
Well, I guess it could be considered a double standard if you follow the same standard twice.
Not if they tell the public what the government are doing... Hacking individuals private communication was wrong when a newspaper did it and it is still wrong when the government does it. It is not the Gruaniad that has double standards, it is Cameroon.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
so they are more guilty because they tried to cooperate and destroy files when asked to do so by the gov?
so next time they will use this lesson to refuse to destroy docs.
and they will be tried for failing to destroy the docs. there's no winning.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
David Cameron is doing a great job as governor of Airstrip One in bowing to Washington's pressure.
"when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security"
They had no choice - if they didn't destroy the hard drives, then the govt. goons sent to their office would have. What kind of reasoning is this??
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
At some point, the people in charge need to define the scope of 'National Security.' Right now the scope seems to be defined as 'anything that security officials claim'. Because of this, anything a journalist publishes can be said to violate National Security since National Security covers everything.
For example, Martin Luther King's speeches criticized the status quo. Since the status quo is now matter of National Security, Martin Luther King's speeches were a threat to National Security, by today's standards.
So the real argument is what exactly is National Security? Is the status quo more important than civil liberty? Further, why are we not investigating whether or not secret laws used to justify anything violate the law?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
"The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies."
So:
Cameron's hired goons spend their time harassing the Guardian and its little journalist chums into returning or destroying the data on the pretext that "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
The Guardian eventually goes "oh, whatever; if this pointless activity will make you any happier, okay", and permitted GCHQ security experts to trash the hardware containing the data. As one of said GCHQ types put it, now that the files have been destroyed "We can call off the black helicopters."
Aaaand... Cameron then claims that the Guardian's compliance with this pointless demand is proof that the Guardian has published stuff that is dangerous for national security. Which only goes to show that the Guardian should have told Whitehall to sit on it and swivel.
Conclusion: Cameron is a loathsome lump of Eton excreta. He and his equally repellent deputy Clegg have also recently claimed that publication of the NSA material is 'not in the public interest' because it is too complicated for most people to understand, therefore most of the public would not be interested. It's good to know that Government have a strong understanding of key concepts such as 'public interest'.
So, Guardian, the next time the government "politely" asks you to do something, you politely tell the cunts to bugger off and die from an acute lack of tea *. Because evidently they try to use you complying with their requests to be admitting you're wrong. Should have probably known that before.
(* Is that how you would say it? I'm not a British newspaper, so I'm not exactly sure.)
If Cameron really cared, he'd stop publishing government job ads in the Guardian, since that seems to be one of its largest sources of income.
Besides which, terrists already know the government is spying on them, so this is hardly news to them. It's the rest of us who used to think that the tin-foil hat wearers claiming the government was siphoning up everything were actually paranoid.
Daddy got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, therefore the kids who saw him are guilty.
Because the cookies may have been used to pay off terrorists or something...
Bad analogy? Sorry, I only learnt logic from our democratic overlords.
He really needs to just focus on making a bad sequel to Avatar and shut the hell up.
In Sweden there's sections in the laws about freedom of speech that makes investigation of the sources of journalists illegal, even if the source might have committed a crime. The police or other law enforcer can't ask a journalist about their sources. That'd be illegal. A journalist doesn't have to keep silent though, so he might tell anyway but the police can't even ask for it. That's what's in the law. But there's probably secret provisions around it if it's a matter of national security, or just using some other agent to do so.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
""The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security "
Lets be clear, the CIA trained Mujahadeen fighters to fight the Russians. It created a database "Al Qaeda", literally translates as "database" in Arabic. The database of those fighters, included one Bin Laden. Who is "Al Qaeda" and who wasn't "Al Qaeda" was defined by the CIA's database originally.
That group turned on the US, after the Russians had been driven out of Afganistan. So I trust the US government about as much as any person can trust THE PEOPLE WHO TRAINED THE TERRORISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Which is not at all. They make an endless series of terrible choices that result in lots of deaths.
Next up, GCHQ stands accused of breaking UK law, lying to the Cabinet and lying to Parliament. The "National" for the UK, means "Britain", not America. Snoopers Charter is not law, GCHQ did not get the laws they wanted and they are outside the law.That's why they kept it secret from most of the government they are supposed to represent, yet NSA and US was told.
Guardian are not just leaking secrets, they revealing high-treason. The most serious example we've ever seen in British history. Not just a spy here or there leaking stuff to foreign powers, but a whole agency systematically spying on Brits and hiding the evidence from Parliament and Cabinet.
You might want to check your map again. Greece is in Eastern Europe.
Because I want David Cameron investigated over Snowden files.
Destroying files what required to do so under threat of violence is now an admission of guilt?? Cameron, you are a prick. This is the government making an example of a newspaper to scare other newspapers into line. I've recently subscribed to The Guardian (again - I used to subscribe many years ago when I lived over there). I recommend it.. we can demonstrate the public will with our money.
HIS name is in those files as well. Should be interesting to see what dirt is dug up about MI5 and GCHQ. The GCHQ is collecting and storing "vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls" and sharing them with the NSA. NSA analysts reportedly "share direct access to the system." (http://www.policymic.com/articles/50333/gchq-the-british-are-spying-on-us-more-than-the-nsa-is)
Of course there isn't one.
In the first case the Guardian stood up to its own industry and exposed highly unethical behaviour showing that it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with colleagues. In the second case it stood up to its own government and exposed their incompetence and/or complicity in unethical behaviour against their own citizens and friendly nations showing it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with those in power.
So yes I would agree that the Guardian has met a "double standard" for moral behaviour. The question is when will he and his government? A good start would be apologizing for invading our privacy and putting their own interests above their public duty not to mention parliamentary expense claims...
Then they should have a national discussion of what the laws should be as opposed to what they are now.
Had the Guardian not complied, I suppose David Cameron's response would have been "I thought they were guilty, but when they refused to voluntarily cooperate with my national security adviser and cabinet secretary, I started to reconsider."
No? But if not, then he is just trying to rationalize some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nonsense.
Yes A/C it got abbreviated. Good misdirection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians
Robin Cook knowsthe origin of the name better than Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
(Note: in many Semitic languages the words "camp" and "base" are interchangeable).
National security was damaged by sharing national secrets with a foreign power who shared them with a private company who shared them with a private citizen. The fact that a national newspaper then reports what the private citizen had access to is only appropriate.
Korma: Good
We already have secret courts with secret laws that no one is allowed to talk about. How long will it be before people start to disappear and it's illegal to ask what happened? Sounds like China!
The NSA wants David Cameron to investigate the Guardian over the files. England has been the U.S's bitch since we kicked them out...
Out of all the politicians around the world, I've not heard of one making any apologies for the surveillance or the abuse of law and process. Instead, they're all focused on the "leak" and what could have been done about it to prevent it. They're focused on charging the people involved to hopefully stop others from leaking in the future, when they should be red-faced with shame and embarassment over getting caught.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's personal security that is important...
"The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security."'
Is he referring to when the Government pressured the Guardian into having a couple of (I think it was) MacBooks physically destroyed?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters
"A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.
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." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
After which...
"The man was unmoved. And so 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."
If the PM is characterizing this as the Guardian by its actions admitting damage to national security, then he is a fraud and a trickster.
Now you're confusing republican systems with democratic ones. They are similar but not the same.
Fair is fair.
We know David Cameron lied to the House of Commons.
That is a crime.
Jail is the only solution.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I find this particularly ironic as I want David Cameron investigated over the Snowden Files.
Its been how long since the files were released? What national security was damaged? Shouldn't we have evidence by now that some damage actually occurred?
In absolute terms, there isn't one.The Guardian published information, because that's what journalists do.
From the perspective of a government, though, the situations as complete opposites. In the case of phone hacking, the Guardian supported the security of the public by exposing and denouncing a crime. In the case of the Snowden documents, the Guardian is exposing and denouncing a legal operation protecting the security of the public, and in doing so it's helping criminals evade detection.
To Cameron, it looks like the Guardian is acting inconsistently, publishing whatever it wants not based on ethics, but rather based on the potential for public outrage.
Your perspective and sense of ethics may differ.
Yes, exactly, this is what journalists do, or are supposed to do, anyway. It's incredible to me that the idea of a double standard is even being brought up. I mean, jeez, haven't these people considered the possibility that a newspaper might have published the details of both operations because, well, they were both, um... News??
I guess these days it's just assumed that there has to be a political agenda of some kind behind every single story a news organization publishes. Which is just pathetic. I guess the concept of journalism for journalism's sake, and maybe the entire concept of a free press in general, is now considered passe by the politicians running our so-called democracies.
National security and putting people in danger seems like a smoke screen at this point.
Really? I could have sworn we had a story touching on that --- yesterday. The paint isn't even dry yet and people are forgetting already?
If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry
I don't really recall seeing the government making that argument. I see many people claim it does. The closest I recall is when they say they are looking for terrorists, not ordinary people. That is rather different.
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
Cold you do understand that any regime in power can label any activity it likes disruptive and ensure the full force of the UK is focused on the person.
You may recall US political sympathy of the IRA or is that forgetting already? Where one gov is 'looking for terrorists' in your terms another side of politics sees classic freedom fighters.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes teams where trained to fight the Soviet Union with very old SAM tech like Blow Pipe in the UK.
Thats why it all fits back together again in Syria with arms shipments and supporting external 'freedom fighters'.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files"
They knew they didn't have the only copy so they figured "WTF It's the only way we're going to get out of this basement so, screw it, we can always pick up a spare copy at our destination."
The security adviser should have told the cabinet secretary about the reach of the internet, but he didn't bother. LOL :-)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
whistleblowing is not the same thing as hacking into a dead girl's phone.
Cold you do understand
He doesn't understand anything. He blindly trusts the government no matter what.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
I think the poster means Secretary of State for Defence. The difference being that unlike the American Secretary of Defense, the British secretary holds an elected
office (in the case of Philip Hammond, representing Runnymede and Weybridge), and does not need Parliamentary approval to serve. His US counterpart needs Senate confirmation to serve.
This Sig does not Exist.
"The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security."
..
After an unannounced visit from GCHQ the Guardian destroyed some harddrives, but not the ones the data was on
A, you do realize that some activities truly are disruptive? What would have happened in WW2 if someone decided that the fact that Britain was reading Enigma traffic "wanted to be free" - free directly to the Germans? Britain was in genuine danger of starvation as it was. That could have easily ensured that Britain did starve, and cost the Allies the war.
What you refer to as "US political sympathy" for the IRA was a limited section of the population, not a national policy.
There are few ideas so evil or bad that they can't find support. There are still Nazis and communists, aren't there? You do know that there are movements dedicated to the self-extermination of human life to "save the environment"?
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
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Let's just be clear about this, the US did not establish and train al Qaida.
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 guess it depends on the terms "establish" and "train" and the name/branding/flag of the 'freedom fighters" at the time CF :) ..." literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
"The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means" by Robin Cook (Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001)
ie
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Al Qaida
The name comes from the Arabic noun q'idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.[70]
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[71]
Transcript of Bin Laden's October interview
BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.
We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.
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
..government investigate press!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
To follow up this. could be the interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8NONpx7BE