Slashdot Mirror
High Court Rules Detention of David Miranda Was Lawful
Alain Williams writes with news that last year's detention of David Miranda and seizure of files destined for Glenn Greenwald has been ruled lawful. From the article: "The nine-hour detention ... of an ex-Guardian journalist's partner has been ruled lawful. ... At the High Court, Mr Miranda claimed his detention under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful and breached human rights. But judges said it was a 'proportionate measure in the circumstances' and in the interests of national security. ... In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws said: 'The claimant was not a journalist; the stolen GCHQ intelligence material he was carrying was not "journalistic material," or if it was, only in the weakest sense.'"
Naturally, an appeal is planned.
To paraphrase, when the government does it, it's not illegal. It would be absurd to expect any other outcome.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hope they read him his Miranda rights... :D
--- Bouh !!! ---
Is that a bit of editorializing? Surely someone's title & name aren't really, legally, "Lord Justice Laws." If so, I'd be genuinely worried that such an individual has gone off on a serious power trip.
Mr Miranda made a fatal mistake in his plans. He should have loaded the stolen GCHQ data files onto an Android and fired them into space in an escape pod. I'm sure he'd have been arrested for that, but it's also likely that someone would try and rescue him.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
There is a very real distinction between the people and their interests, and the state and its interests. These are useful moments which illustrate for everyone that it's not quite a democracy and not quite a republic. The interests of the people, such as fairness, do not factor in as much as protecting the interests of those in office, those who support those in office and those who are, in turn, supported by those in office.
I've always believed the phrase "freedom of the press" to mean freedom of the printing press, i.e. the right to disseminate information freely, rather than any particular group of people.
Does the UK have laws that protect freedom of the press?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Just asking.
But does this Miranda modify the previous Miranda? And how does that affect Barry Manilow and Mandy?
I'm so confused!
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Based on the drivel they publish that makes American grocery store tabloids look like appropriate child bedtime story reading, I assume so.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No, "Jr." implies that "Sr." is their father and respects them. I think the term "USA's slave country" would be more accurate.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The GCHQ had it right from the 1960 to 1990's - ignore the courts (wrt to useful logs of Soviet spies), the press and just keep on collecting all signals. What the public did not know becomes a US tell all book on the NSA or a few hints by former UK staff mostly about tracking the Soviet Unions efforts in the UK. :)
The great part of this is the new 'interests of national security" aspect. The UK gov is really feeding the press with this kind of open court 'classic'.
Where can the UK gov go from here?
Stop and question more members of the press moving into or via or from the UK for a few hours?
Soon the UK will get that "East German" feel for the press and they will learn the limits any interrogation methods and publish their travel experiences in great detail.
The mood in the room, the color of law used, time taken i.e. if the UK gov did not pull a member of the press aside - your work have become safe, tame, bland.
What can the UK gov do to the press?
Read back in detail their travel/guest/interview history and what 'happened' to past whistleblower in a loud voice between legal clauses without a lawyer in the room?
That kind of effort works once - the member of the press comes out fully understanding the nature of power and keeps on publishing with renewed enthusiasm.
The member of the press comes out fully understanding the nature of power, totally stops publishing but others start work with great enthusiasm after an aspect of the media chilling story become public.
A third aspect is a member of the press fully understands the interview process and turns the interview to an ongoing very public legal event.
Its win win win for the UK press. The state has shown its 'power' publically and we are all watching a journalistic Berlin Wall go up
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Hardly unique though. Owning lockpicks is illegal unless you're a locksmith.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If this had been in the US they would have had to Mirandize Mr. Miranda.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
> "In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws (name completely, absolutely 100% unrelated)said: 'The claimant..."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Journalist shield laws are great if your a gov.
Start with needing an expensive tertiary education, set what kind of valid press pass are needed, then double up with a police press pass per city.
Privacy laws, commercial-in-confidence, wiretap laws, distant ongoing war restrictions... pro gov sock puppets and bloggers...
Still feel like walking around with a camera behind police lines risking your credentials on a real story?
The UK gov has learned a lot from its years in Ireland, during the Falklands and can quickly find a way around the digital UK press years later.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
David Miranda
You have the right to be wooshed. Anything joke can and will be missed by you. You have the right to consult Google, and to have Google explain the joke to you. If you cannot Google, the joke will be explained to you by a snarky slashdotter.
And here I thought that the big bad USA had sole responsibility for *all* the abuses of human rights in the world, at least in the eyes of some. This decision comes from the UK and clearly establishes that there is at least some basis for curbs on the press.
Might it be, that there is at least *some* precedent for the protection of "national security" and some responsibility on the press to be prudent when classified information is disclosed to them? And here we have the same issues being raised in other countries, with similar results.
Remember, that you either allow for and protect classified information though law, or you don't have *any* ability to keep anything classified. You either must allow for there to be things you cannot legal know or live in a world where anything is fair game to publish. I for one think that classified "national security" information is necessary, even in light of the USA's first amendment and the limits such rules put on free speech. We can argue about what goes into the "National security" box, but I don't think there is any viable case for not having the box in the first place.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We invented the superinjunction: A court order against that prohibits disclosing specified information, as well as prohibits disclosing the existence of the injunction. They are civil things, usually used by celebrities to prevent the the press from disclosing some juicy scandalous gossip about their personal lives, most commonly extramarital affairs. Just how often this happens is something of a mystery though, as the super-injunctions are secret by nature - the only time the public finds out is when the information leaks by some other channel. Even in court records, the person bringing the injunction is only identified by a three-letter random codename.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure it would come as a shock to many Americans that those Europeans, whose lifestyle they hold in such high regard, don't share the same rights as they do. Yet they keep insisting America should become more like Europe. Let me know how well that works out for you. Of course, Europeans have managed to figure out that loser-pays tort law is the way to go so it's not all bassackwards.
Yea, uh, that's how it's supposed to work. The major point of the 4th Amendment was precisely to prevent fishing expeditions either in scope of area searched, duration of search, or material to be seized. It all amounts to basically hard evidence gathering of otherwise known facts. To that end, I would actually support requirements of handing over encryption passwords to things if the 4th Amendment was actually being followed as intended. Instead, it takes but the world of a border guard or law enforcement officer to fish into all you personal documents or as in this case the personal documents of your supposedly close associates.
Of course, all of the above is a moot point since this is the UK and obvious US laws don't apply. But, then, as I already stated it's not as if US laws really apply in the US properly either. As a sort of tangent, I think this scenario disproves Upaya--I don't think journalists intent to reclaim their inherent rights was anything more than a expedient step towards their real needs to oversee government intrusions but it's come at the cost of enshrining the false belief that journalists deserve these inherent rights and everyone else will use them to shield their crimes. It's funny that we don't see that logic used to have harsh, dismantling laws over governments and companies which consistently function as much worse shields to crimes not only of wanting desire to harm but simple, consistent apathy to negative consequence.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Except that Miranda is not, never has been or claimed to be, a journalist.
He was, in essence, a mule.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Uhm, no - there are no "fundamental" human rights, the very idea is a bullshit concept.
Every right we talk about are rights we grant each other - you don't have a right to life, that's a privilege society around you grants you to have and enjoy. You don't have a right to freedom of expression, that's a privilege society around you grants you to have and enjoy. You don't have a right to carry lock picks, that's a privilege society grants to certain members.
The only thing protecting your "right" to do anything at all is society as a majority, which distinctly removes the possibility that its a fundamental right.
What freedom of expression, self governance, life and everything else are are in-fact rightful and just privileges that should be defended by society as a whole for each other.
Uh no it's hyper partisan either side, not especially on the "left" and the "right". What's more conservatives label facts as being hyper partisan nowadays. Liberals of course do this too, but to a much lesser degree, but that's only because it tends to already coincide with their value structure. The 4th estate is seriously flawed, and this goes back most recently to the removal of the fairness doctrine. When infotainment became more valued than education by the American populace this crap fed on itself. If Americans demand less bias and are willing to actual do more research than take the sound byte fact machine's words for it things will change. But that's hard and we all have limited attention spans.
Uhm, no - there are no "fundamental" human rights, the very idea is a bullshit concept.
Well, in the view of the authors of the US Declaration of Independence, there are 3 "inalienable" human rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think we can equate "inalienable" with "fundamental".
However, it's noteworthy that despite these high words, the USA is very big on the death penalty, which would seem to indicate that the right to life isn't so inalienable after all.
I know that this is more of an American/Canadian term, but does "chilling effects" ring any bells? If the government can't* do this to journalists but can and will do it to their families and friends, they have to see how that would affect journalist behavior? It's pretty classic operant conditioning AND probably a case of collective punishment as well. * We know they will, but just for the sake of argument
Uncle-grandpa seems more fitting in this case.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
At least Sweden do have freedom of the press - if someone provides secret information to a journalist of a newspaper then it's by law forbidden to try to backtrack the information flow to find the leak.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Unfortunately the meaning of Miranda Law differs between the UK and the US now.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Well, in the view of the authors of the US Declaration of Independence, there are 3 "inalienable" human rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think we can equate "inalienable" with "fundamental".
As the Declaration of Independence has no bearing in law, those inalienable human rights are a damn fine philosophical aspiration and nothing else.
Good constitutional law does not claim to enumerate all rights, but does explicitly protect the ones believed at the time to be the most readily threatened by government power. Of course, that makes dumbasses in the "it's not listed in the Constitution" camp claim that the other unspecified rights aren't rights. (Many of the dumbasses I speak of are in places of power, so I suspect it's actually shoddy and dishonest attempt to justify infringements on fundamental unenumerated rights.)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Then it's not freedom of the press IMO, if the laws only protect people who happen to be employed by a media outlet.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Did they read Mr Miranda his Miranda rights?
This is, to put it bluntly, precisely opposite of the philosophy of the US constitution. In US law, individual rights are enumerated, they are not granted. That's what "inalienable rights" means. It is not up for debate, it's supposed to be the fundamental bedrock that makes western style democracies work. It's possible for society to impinge upon those rights, but doing so can only be described as violating the central tenet of what modern western society is founded upon.
No, not a bullshit concept, and not that hard to understand: Fundamental human rights are not "a privilege society around you grants you"; you can buy a car and drive it, or buy land - those are privileges. You need to follow some rules to do either. Not so your human rights: as you -- hopefully -- are a human being, you possess certain rights; if society or any government for that matter does not grant you those rights, you are deprived from what civilized humanity has agreed to be the most basic things each and every human being posseses. Not so much a concept, it's rather a state, and you entered it simply by being born. There is no debate whether those rights exist. They just do. You did not just miss a memo here.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
this sounds like an april fools article: .... In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws
At the High Court, Mr Miranda claimed his detention under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful
so miranda was complaining about his rights and lord justice laws laid down the, um, law...
awesome...
Well, NOTHING is more American than dollars.
In a Plutocracy, money is the real first class citizen, eh?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
No wonder we plunged to 46th place on press freedoms...
Listen to this On The Media story or this article for details, but basically Reporters Without Borders changes its methodology every year, and the rankings are largely based on the perceptions of reporters within the respective countries, which is far from an objective measure. So as WP article states,
Most of the coverage is based on the premise that 2013 saw a sudden, alarming and perhaps unprecedented decline in media press freedom because the ranking dropped from the previous year. This is just bad data journalism for big two reasons. First, it confuses relative rankings with absolute scores – more on this later. Second, it ignores the fact that Reporters Without Borders has been raising and dropping the U.S. ranking for years.
I actually largely agree with your more abstract points, but it's worth pointing out that the entire press freedom ranking you cite is at best fairly misleading, and arguably entirely worthless. As the author of the article points out when interviewed on On The Media, Reporters Without Borders does some excellent work compiling statistics and incidents of press freedoms being impinged upon around the world. But their ranking system is best ignored.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
The US gov't funds abortion too. And, we have the NSA vs. Liberty. That leaves the Pursuit of Happiness, vs. the IRS.
What?!
"Freedom of the press" did NOT mean "Freedom of news corporations and their employees." When the U.S. Constitution was written, a press was a device someone might own or otherwise have access to. "Freedom of the press" meant that the U.S. federal government was not allowed to tell citizens what they could or could not say in writing. It was supposed to make clear that "freedom of speech" was not just restricted to what you could say with your mouth, but also via other methods of communication.
In other words, every U.S. citizen has the right to "freedom of the press," at least in theory. In reality, almost every supposed right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution can (or often has been) taken away almost at will by those in power. In other words, the Bill of Rights basically has become the "List of Things We Might Let You Have Unless You Really Annoy/Embarass Us."
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
Except he didn't have any particular rights upon being questioned. No right to a lawyer, no right to silence etc.. Which is partly why this particular law is so controversial. If he had been arrested as a terrorist he would have had far more rights and greater protections.