8 ms·

UK police use terror powers to seize BBC Newsnight journalist's laptop

168 points by anon1385 11y ago

Kliment 11y ago
"terror powers" seems quite appropriate - that this is legal at all is terrifying
maweki 11y ago
And why exactly are people wondering that it's always the fictionalized UK that turns into a fascist dictatorship and not any other country?
- peteretep 11y ago
  Because it's pretty much the only country in Europe that's never had a facist government.
  - sdoering 11y ago
    I fear, looking around me, that this might not be that much of an antidote in other European countries. Even here in Germany the historic lessons somehow seem to be at least partly forgotten. We have a lot of outspoken people against right winged extremists, but there are regions here, where the right populists patrol the streets in the name of securing against raiders from eastern countries (south eastern Saxonia for example). There the police is not able to protect people against car theft and such, so that they flock to these who promise protection. And with overwhelming majority they oftentimes get voted into local governments. I really hope such tendencies do not spread further. But clearly historic lessons seem to be forgotten in these regions.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    Nice doublespeak. What you really mean is that its the one country in the world you would expect fascism to rise as it has been, since the UK has always had a classist bent to its politics and requires the underclass to serve at the behest of the elite. Those who have seen the other side of the Imperial table at which the UK dines know full well that the 'slide into fascism' is really just an unveiling.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I got around to reading "A Very British Coup" last week - amazing that the book is over 30 years old, I would expect the outcome described in the book to occur if the current leader of the Labour party actually got into power (mind you - not that this very likely).
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Hehe, that's a good one. The UK has pretty much the only European fascist government to survive the second world war. I mean, what else would you call close collusion between "loyal" industry and state? WWII wasn't "freedom v. fascism" - it was one lot of fascists against the others - and the ones that won just had better branding. Fewer skulls on uniforms, just as much pomp and pageantry, more economic fascism than social.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      The UK only has a facist government if you're willing to reduce the term to meaning "one I don't like". Take a country with one of the most diverse capitals on earth, with one of the last protectionist and most liberal capitalist systems in the world, democratic traditions that go back to the magna carta, and you get ... not facism.
Paul_S 11y ago
I'm scared by how terror laws can be used to justify anything the state wants to do. I think it's too late to stop it now.
- jarek 11y ago
  Far from the first time - they used them to try to settle a banking dispute with Iceland once!
junto 11y ago
Short term gain for long term pain from the security services here. Journalists and researchers into Islamic groups like IS, should be left in peace to carry out research into how these militant groups operate and function. The security services have struggled to make inroads on these groups. Unable to place effective spies and get Intel, especially on home grown cells. Journalists therefore provide a double function in these challenging times. They provide the public with valuable insights into the psyche behind these groups, and in parallel they gain important access to people in these groups that no one else can. The flip side of this coin, is that journalists need to be acutely aware that they are not used as an IS marketing and propaganda platform. If journalist fear arrest from the state in order to divulge their sources then these groups stop talking to them. My gut feeling is that this was exactly the security services intention. The article hints at the journalists links to an alleged pro-militant employer, so it is quite possible that they view him as a sympathiser. One needs to understand the psyche of people who work in the security services and special branch. They are very polarised in their beliefs and their opinions. They tend to be racist, xenophobic and have a tendency to group people in tidy mental boxes. They see the world in black and white. There is no grey. They are massively insular and have very much an "us and them mentality". They have comparatively a large amount of power, and enjoy using it. They know that they can bend rules like this and will only get a public slap on the wrists and a quiet pat on the back from their superiors. Therefore they know that they can for a warning shot across this young Muslim journalist's bow, and get away with it. My two cents.
- petewailes 11y ago
  I'm fairly certain you don't actually know anything like enough people who work for any of the security services in the UK to make this an informed opinion. Because you couldn't be more wrong. A populist viewpoint with no basis whatsoever in reality. Not surprising, but disappointing. For the avoidance of doubt, no, I don't support what's happened here. It's ill-judged (no pun intended) to say the least.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    > A populist viewpoint with no basis whatsoever in reality. What you just said serves no purpose. Can you please provide sources and alternative viewpoints people can actually discuss, rather than belittle someone for commenting on a story?
SwellJoe 11y ago
So, I nearly said something mildly snarky about the US having at least not stooped this low. But, then I remembered that Glenn Greenwald's partner's laptop was stolen from their home immediately after Greenwald mentioned on the phone he would be sending copies of encrypted communications from Snowden. The obvious candidate for that theft would be the US government. And, that would probably be even more despicable than doing it out in the open like this. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe people exist who want to live in a world like this, where privacy and free speech mean nothing. And, yet, when given the chance to build a world like this, so many weaselly little tyrants in bureaucratic roles take every opportunity to push people around, making the world sadder and more bleak for everyone.
lucaspiller 11y ago
The BBC article has some more on this [0]: > "It did not resist Thames Valley's application for an order under the Terrorism Act in court because the act does not afford grounds under which it could be opposed. > "It is troubling that this legislation does not provide the opportunity for the media to mount a freedom of speech defence." [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34666281 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34666281
- gaius 11y ago
  Was it freedom of speech when the BBC informed the Argentines that their bomb fuses were wrongly set to attack British ships, or when they warned them of the impending attack on Goose Green? I get what you're saying but the BBC plays both sides of this argument.
  - bainsfather 11y ago
    You are aware that it was the Number 10 (Prime Minister's office) that provided the information on Goose Green to the BBC, the BBC then reported it? The worst/only criticism of the BBC that I have read (from e.g. Mrs Thatcher's autobiography) is that the BBC should have double-checked with the PM's office to make sure they'd not really been so incompetent as to 'unintentionally' announce news of an impending operation.
XJOKOLAT 11y ago
In the title, change "UK" to "Chinese State" and you might not bat an eyelid. The democracy we have is a Frankenstein version of the democracy many think we have. And in the same way you would hesitate at calling Frankenstein human, I would hesitate at calling what we have a democracy. I'll still have it over the alternatives but what a mediocre state we've ended up in. Needs to be fixed.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  It's still democracy and it still protects against extreme runaway government power. Ultimately the issue is that people want this. People are scared of terrorists. People do want the government to bend the rules to track them down. That's exactly what democracy is supposed to be. What it's not supposed to be is what everyone wants, fair, right or ensuring people's information is kept secret from the government. In short, politicians do what their voters demand.
  - jhrrsn 11y ago
    Yes, but I believe in a society where almost all of the major news outlets are owned by supporters of the current government, the politicians also have a strong ability to control what their voters are demanding.
    - notahacker 11y ago
      Not really. The Murdochs are quite enamoured with Cameron, but they're not in the least bit interested in doing what he asks of them (and just as obsessed with opposing proposed press censorship as they are with reporting on Islamic terrorism). The staunchly anti-present-government Guardian and the Mirror sell plenty of newspapers. And even that bastion of knee-jerk conservatism Daily Mail is happy to run smear stories on the Prime Minister as a major exclusive. Government control over media output in the UK is minimal at best.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        The illusion of choice. These papers do run many stories that are anti-government true. But for certain issues they line up behind the government. The Snowden files story was initially fully covered only by the Guardian -- who have since had a change of Editor after their offices were raided by the security services and equipment smashed. There has been (until now) almost no coverage that the government wants to pass the snoopers charter soon. There is no coverage that the 'emergency' DRIP bill from last year is due for renewal before Christmas. Due to the way that DRIP was rammed through Parliament last year in defiance of normal procedure my MP promised me a robust debate before the renewal. It looks like it will go through without so much as whisper. EDITED as the telegraph currently has a front page article on the snoopers charter on its website. I hope that there is time for people to lobby their MPs (which is what killed it off last time).
ck2 11y ago
Will UK folks actually protest this or have they become like the US public, completely complacent and apathetic to all intrusions, as long as they can still go shopping at the mall, watch football and get drunk every weekend? So the pattern is basically, pass insane laws because "terrorist" then use the incredibly broad and overreaching laws beyond abuse for anything they want to do. Exactly the pattern law enforcement does with every single tool they are given, physical or virtual.
- dublinclontarf 11y ago
  Am in the UK, no one is worried about this. FYI we don't have the freedom of speech guarantees that the US does, and this doesn't really bother people. TLDR; storm in a teacup.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Are people really ok with jail time for a drunken tweet from the pub?
- maaarghk 11y ago
  The second one. It's very depressing. Particularly as I voted to leave the UK last year. The democracy is a smoke screen. The government and the establishment are morally bankrupt. Journalists openly write/boast about colluding with politicians to advance certain agendas. Honestly I just find the fact that the country voted these people in a complete embarrassment.
- ionised 11y ago
  > Will UK folks actually protest this or have they become like the US public, completely complacent and apathetic to all intrusions, as long as they can still go shopping at the mall, watch football and get drunk every weekend? Exactly this. I'm British and I'm completely fucking tired of living here and watching how right-wing, xenophobic, poor-bashing and just all-round ignorant and unpleasant people are and are becoming. I feel absolutely no kinship with my countrymen, because most seem completely unwilling to think for themselves. It semms like they would rather just be told who to hate on any given day by a media known for its lies, and by politicians known for their utter greed and contempt for the people. I'm currently looking into moving away and possibly even renouncing my citizenship in future. The problem is, where to move to?
mirimir 11y ago
Reporters ought to protect their sources. Nothing that's discoverable should contain sensitive information. In UK, encryption doesn't suffice. Maybe there's a market for anonymous contact management.
nbevans 11y ago
And I'm okay with this. He talking to ISIS fighters over the internet. He was naive to think that MI6 wouldn't want to know precisely what he has been up to. I'm sure he is innocent and I'm sure MI6 aren't interested in him either; but more concerned with who he has been talking to. And don't worry, I'm sure he will get his computer back once they've cloned the hard disk.
venomsnake 11y ago
Can anyone explain how and why British society moved from "Mind the gap" and "Keep calm and .." to this permanent state of fear?
gizi 11y ago
The situation here is even worse than it looks like. You've got two government departments, one way or another both reporting to Downing Street 10. Suddenly one government department confiscates government assets from another department. This is not supposed to be possible. If they wanted assets from another department, they were supposed to politely ask. If the request was refused, and they believe they were right, they should appeal.

168 points by anon1385 11y ago

"terror powers" seems quite appropriate - that this is legal at all is terrifying

And why exactly are people wondering that it's always the fictionalized UK that turns into a fascist dictatorship and not any other country?

peteretep 11y ago
Because it's pretty much the only country in Europe that's never had a facist government.
- sdoering 11y ago
  I fear, looking around me, that this might not be that much of an antidote in other European countries. Even here in Germany the historic lessons somehow seem to be at least partly forgotten. We have a lot of outspoken people against right winged extremists, but there are regions here, where the right populists patrol the streets in the name of securing against raiders from eastern countries (south eastern Saxonia for example). There the police is not able to protect people against car theft and such, so that they flock to these who promise protection. And with overwhelming majority they oftentimes get voted into local governments. I really hope such tendencies do not spread further. But clearly historic lessons seem to be forgotten in these regions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fit2rule 11y ago
  Nice doublespeak. What you really mean is that its the one country in the world you would expect fascism to rise as it has been, since the UK has always had a classist bent to its politics and requires the underclass to serve at the behest of the elite. Those who have seen the other side of the Imperial table at which the UK dines know full well that the 'slide into fascism' is really just an unveiling.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I got around to reading "A Very British Coup" last week - amazing that the book is over 30 years old, I would expect the outcome described in the book to occur if the current leader of the Labour party actually got into power (mind you - not that this very likely).
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Hehe, that's a good one. The UK has pretty much the only European fascist government to survive the second world war. I mean, what else would you call close collusion between "loyal" industry and state? WWII wasn't "freedom v. fascism" - it was one lot of fascists against the others - and the ones that won just had better branding. Fewer skulls on uniforms, just as much pomp and pageantry, more economic fascism than social.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    The UK only has a facist government if you're willing to reduce the term to meaning "one I don't like". Take a country with one of the most diverse capitals on earth, with one of the last protectionist and most liberal capitalist systems in the world, democratic traditions that go back to the magna carta, and you get ... not facism.

Paul_S 11y ago

I'm scared by how terror laws can be used to justify anything the state wants to do. I think it's too late to stop it now.

jarek 11y ago
Far from the first time - they used them to try to settle a banking dispute with Iceland once!

junto 11y ago

Short term gain for long term pain from the security services here. Journalists and researchers into Islamic groups like IS, should be left in peace to carry out research into how these militant groups operate and function. The security services have struggled to make inroads on these groups. Unable to place effective spies and get Intel, especially on home grown cells. Journalists therefore provide a double function in these challenging times. They provide the public with valuable insights into the psyche behind these groups, and in parallel they gain important access to people in these groups that no one else can. The flip side of this coin, is that journalists need to be acutely aware that they are not used as an IS marketing and propaganda platform. If journalist fear arrest from the state in order to divulge their sources then these groups stop talking to them. My gut feeling is that this was exactly the security services intention. The article hints at the journalists links to an alleged pro-militant employer, so it is quite possible that they view him as a sympathiser. One needs to understand the psyche of people who work in the security services and special branch. They are very polarised in their beliefs and their opinions. They tend to be racist, xenophobic and have a tendency to group people in tidy mental boxes. They see the world in black and white. There is no grey. They are massively insular and have very much an "us and them mentality". They have comparatively a large amount of power, and enjoy using it. They know that they can bend rules like this and will only get a public slap on the wrists and a quiet pat on the back from their superiors. Therefore they know that they can for a warning shot across this young Muslim journalist's bow, and get away with it. My two cents.

petewailes 11y ago
I'm fairly certain you don't actually know anything like enough people who work for any of the security services in the UK to make this an informed opinion. Because you couldn't be more wrong. A populist viewpoint with no basis whatsoever in reality. Not surprising, but disappointing. For the avoidance of doubt, no, I don't support what's happened here. It's ill-judged (no pun intended) to say the least.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  > A populist viewpoint with no basis whatsoever in reality. What you just said serves no purpose. Can you please provide sources and alternative viewpoints people can actually discuss, rather than belittle someone for commenting on a story?

SwellJoe 11y ago

So, I nearly said something mildly snarky about the US having at least not stooped this low. But, then I remembered that Glenn Greenwald's partner's laptop was stolen from their home immediately after Greenwald mentioned on the phone he would be sending copies of encrypted communications from Snowden. The obvious candidate for that theft would be the US government. And, that would probably be even more despicable than doing it out in the open like this. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe people exist who want to live in a world like this, where privacy and free speech mean nothing. And, yet, when given the chance to build a world like this, so many weaselly little tyrants in bureaucratic roles take every opportunity to push people around, making the world sadder and more bleak for everyone.

lucaspiller 11y ago

The BBC article has some more on this [0]: > "It did not resist Thames Valley's application for an order under the Terrorism Act in court because the act does not afford grounds under which it could be opposed. > "It is troubling that this legislation does not provide the opportunity for the media to mount a freedom of speech defence." [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34666281 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34666281

gaius 11y ago
Was it freedom of speech when the BBC informed the Argentines that their bomb fuses were wrongly set to attack British ships, or when they warned them of the impending attack on Goose Green? I get what you're saying but the BBC plays both sides of this argument.
- bainsfather 11y ago
  You are aware that it was the Number 10 (Prime Minister's office) that provided the information on Goose Green to the BBC, the BBC then reported it? The worst/only criticism of the BBC that I have read (from e.g. Mrs Thatcher's autobiography) is that the BBC should have double-checked with the PM's office to make sure they'd not really been so incompetent as to 'unintentionally' announce news of an impending operation.

XJOKOLAT 11y ago

In the title, change "UK" to "Chinese State" and you might not bat an eyelid. The democracy we have is a Frankenstein version of the democracy many think we have. And in the same way you would hesitate at calling Frankenstein human, I would hesitate at calling what we have a democracy. I'll still have it over the alternatives but what a mediocre state we've ended up in. Needs to be fixed.

Asbostos 11y ago
It's still democracy and it still protects against extreme runaway government power. Ultimately the issue is that people want this. People are scared of terrorists. People do want the government to bend the rules to track them down. That's exactly what democracy is supposed to be. What it's not supposed to be is what everyone wants, fair, right or ensuring people's information is kept secret from the government. In short, politicians do what their voters demand.
- jhrrsn 11y ago
  Yes, but I believe in a society where almost all of the major news outlets are owned by supporters of the current government, the politicians also have a strong ability to control what their voters are demanding.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Not really. The Murdochs are quite enamoured with Cameron, but they're not in the least bit interested in doing what he asks of them (and just as obsessed with opposing proposed press censorship as they are with reporting on Islamic terrorism). The staunchly anti-present-government Guardian and the Mirror sell plenty of newspapers. And even that bastion of knee-jerk conservatism Daily Mail is happy to run smear stories on the Prime Minister as a major exclusive. Government control over media output in the UK is minimal at best.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      The illusion of choice. These papers do run many stories that are anti-government true. But for certain issues they line up behind the government. The Snowden files story was initially fully covered only by the Guardian -- who have since had a change of Editor after their offices were raided by the security services and equipment smashed. There has been (until now) almost no coverage that the government wants to pass the snoopers charter soon. There is no coverage that the 'emergency' DRIP bill from last year is due for renewal before Christmas. Due to the way that DRIP was rammed through Parliament last year in defiance of normal procedure my MP promised me a robust debate before the renewal. It looks like it will go through without so much as whisper. EDITED as the telegraph currently has a front page article on the snoopers charter on its website. I hope that there is time for people to lobby their MPs (which is what killed it off last time).

ck2 11y ago

Will UK folks actually protest this or have they become like the US public, completely complacent and apathetic to all intrusions, as long as they can still go shopping at the mall, watch football and get drunk every weekend? So the pattern is basically, pass insane laws because "terrorist" then use the incredibly broad and overreaching laws beyond abuse for anything they want to do. Exactly the pattern law enforcement does with every single tool they are given, physical or virtual.

dublinclontarf 11y ago
Am in the UK, no one is worried about this. FYI we don't have the freedom of speech guarantees that the US does, and this doesn't really bother people. TLDR; storm in a teacup.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Are people really ok with jail time for a drunken tweet from the pub?
maaarghk 11y ago
The second one. It's very depressing. Particularly as I voted to leave the UK last year. The democracy is a smoke screen. The government and the establishment are morally bankrupt. Journalists openly write/boast about colluding with politicians to advance certain agendas. Honestly I just find the fact that the country voted these people in a complete embarrassment.
ionised 11y ago
> Will UK folks actually protest this or have they become like the US public, completely complacent and apathetic to all intrusions, as long as they can still go shopping at the mall, watch football and get drunk every weekend? Exactly this. I'm British and I'm completely fucking tired of living here and watching how right-wing, xenophobic, poor-bashing and just all-round ignorant and unpleasant people are and are becoming. I feel absolutely no kinship with my countrymen, because most seem completely unwilling to think for themselves. It semms like they would rather just be told who to hate on any given day by a media known for its lies, and by politicians known for their utter greed and contempt for the people. I'm currently looking into moving away and possibly even renouncing my citizenship in future. The problem is, where to move to?

mirimir 11y ago

Reporters ought to protect their sources. Nothing that's discoverable should contain sensitive information. In UK, encryption doesn't suffice. Maybe there's a market for anonymous contact management.

nbevans 11y ago

And I'm okay with this. He talking to ISIS fighters over the internet. He was naive to think that MI6 wouldn't want to know precisely what he has been up to. I'm sure he is innocent and I'm sure MI6 aren't interested in him either; but more concerned with who he has been talking to. And don't worry, I'm sure he will get his computer back once they've cloned the hard disk.

venomsnake 11y ago

Can anyone explain how and why British society moved from "Mind the gap" and "Keep calm and .." to this permanent state of fear?

gizi 11y ago

The situation here is even worse than it looks like. You've got two government departments, one way or another both reporting to Downing Street 10. Suddenly one government department confiscates government assets from another department. This is not supposed to be possible. If they wanted assets from another department, they were supposed to politely ask. If the request was refused, and they believe they were right, they should appeal.