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.
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.
A far better plan is to generate several thousand encryption keys based on simple dictionary words and well known phrases. Encrypt the real data with one of them, and a load of bestiality pix, articles about idiots who work for the government, gay porn, and asian cooking recipes, encrypted each file with a different key, and sent the correct key to the destination.
Since you can't refuse to give them the key in the UK, you hand them a randomized list of all the keys with no indication as to which maps to which. Let them enjoy the sorting.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
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