13 ms·
How the UK Security Services neutralised The Guardian
- StreamBright 7y agoNot many people care about these atrocities in the west.
- interfixus 7y agoFishy! This site requests access to all passwords in my KeePassXC Firefox addon. Never seen quite that level of blatancy before.
- kmlx 7y agowow. is this even legal?
- interfixus 7y agoIt does, dammit! Downvoter care to elaborate?
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoUse https://archive.fo/w7Uoq https://archive.fo/w7Uoq
- StreamBright 7y agoYou have been experiencing the downvote culture that developed recently on HN.
- mtmail 7y agoWhat a Firefox plugin does on a computer has little to do with "How UK security services neutralised the Guardian newspaper" and distracts the discussion. It get boring reading about popups, font-choices, a website not working in Opera 9, auto-playing videos, paywalls. What I've witnessed (I didn't downvote) is as soon as such off-article-topic goes to 5+ comments or half the comment thread it gets downvoted.
- quickthrower2 7y agoNot a down-voter myself, but the statement made needs more elaboration, because at first glance it makes it sound like there is a security issue with the site, when it is more likely to be an issue with the password manager.
- Tomte 7y agoNo, it doesn't. Because web sites aren't involved in how your password managers works. Best guess: the password manager cannot match the title or URL to any of your password entries and now offers you to pick the right one. Screaming murder doesn't make your comments any more credible or valuable.
- k1m 7y agoCan you elaborate? How does it do that? And why would that level of access, even if a website wanted it, even be a feature of a password manager? Genuinely curious.
- interfixus 7y agoYou're right, I should elaborate. The site causes a normal KeePassXC-Browser popup, "www.dailymaverick.co.za has requested access to passwords for the following item(s). Please select whether you want to allow access." Then comes the weird stuff. It may not actually be all my passwords, but it sure is a lot of them, the long list ominously beginning with my bank and a mobile payment solutions. It's probably a bug of some kind. But sure looks scary. On my way to work, and on phone only for next many hours, so not able to look further into.
- ctack 7y agoPlease do. The editorial staff seem like a really well intentioned bunch, but of course there could be something nefarious going on.
- goldcd 7y agoOr it could all be FUD, spread by MI6 raises eyebrow
- k1m 7y agoThanks. If I had to guess, I'd say this sounds more like a problem with KeePassXC than the site. I haven't used KeePassXC, but in my experience of these kind of addons, the site is not even involved in making a request for a password, the password manager kicks in when it detects a login prompt and suggest a password based on the URL of the site you've loaded. That's why I was curious how it would be possible for the site to not only initiate this, but demand passwords for other sites.
- elp 7y agoIts their dodgy ad network as always. Daily Maverick is great journalism by South African standards but they are complete and utter idiots when it comes to their advertisers. Then they wonder why everyone blocks ads and they can't make money.
- erjavicdb 7y agowow!
- Angostura 7y agoAs I understand it, the Guardian had previously always considered D-notice requests and had usually acquiesced. However, it decided that Snowden was so important that it took the pretty unprecedented step of ignoring them. This made the intelligence services particularly dischuffed. Post-Snowden the status-quo was re-established. It remains to be seen whether the Guardian would ignore D-notices again, if something else of the magnitude of Snowden came along - I hope it would use its judgement and do so, if necessary. I'm not necessarily against newspapers considering requests from the intelligence service not to publish something for good reason - it can end up with people dying. It's a tough decision an editor has to make.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIgnoring a D notice seems to get the system renamed, but brought back almost identically each time. Each time they've been renamed, there's been an "incident". :) Or just never ask authorities of the possible conflict with national security in the first place, and just publish unasked. Obviously that's not always possible, but what happened for the first Snowden story. The rest had to go through D notice as everyone now knew they were there... Edit: Here's a Guardian piece on D notices and renaming, confirming the first Snowden story simply side-stepped them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/31/d-notice-system-state-media-press-freedom https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/31/d-notice-syste... Fascinating to see the first major incident being Chapman Pincher, Daily Express defence correspondent. Ah, the days when the Express was an investigative broadsheet with pretty good (right of centre) reputation. How far they have fallen to today's comic...
- Singletoned 7y ago"dischuffed"? Surely "nonchuffed"? "Dischuffed" suggests that they had been previously chuffed with the Guardian.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoHmm, dischuffed has always seemed to be used simply for unhappy. Superlative Antonym: Chuffed to little mint balls.
- CapacitorSet 7y ago>An error occurred during a connection to www.dailymaverick.co.za. Peer using unsupported version of security protocol. Error code: SSL_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION How can you test so little on Firefox that it doesn't even connect? (FF Nightly, Linux)
- k1m 7y agoWorks fine in my Firefox.
- guiriduro 7y agoThe article clearly demonstrates that The Guardian has become a shadow of its former self - pro-Establishment, anti-Assange, anti-Corbyn/Labour, all of its trustworthy intelligence reporters having left. Something of an open secret to be honest, how it now arrogates to pretend to still be "Left"-leaning but is nothing of the sort, under editorship veering from amateurish to clearly complicit.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoLately it’s also been feeling obvious & creepy how much The Guardian just runs second rate knock off stories that NY Times runs first, even regarding British or European news. Not headline stories that many newspapers would plausibly cover, but even many far lesser stories, entertainment or sports, pop culture, etc. The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it.
- KineticLensman 7y ago> The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it. George Monbiot [0] would disagree with you. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoTo me that’s just an eyeroll sort of thing. It’s funny because I actually agree pretty significantly with his politics and a lot of his writing, but find the writing itself to be bad, especially at ever seeming fair or balanced, like an even more self-righteous Krugman. I first heard of Monbiot because Radiohead’s lead singer, Thom Yorke, apparently knows him and somewhat promotes his writing. At any rate, no, Monbiot pieces would definitely not be a dent in what I am saying (for me anyway).
- pessimizer 7y agoYour politics are showing. The point is that Monbiot pieces aren't NYT knockoffs, not that Monbiot pieces are "fair and balanced" (a marketing blurb created by Fox News.)
- samastur 7y agoThere are interesting bits in this article, but on the whole it is not well written and clearly slanted. For example, section about Guardian's reporting on Corbyn has 8 long paragraphs about other media reports like it has any bearing on Guardian's. I don't like much of Guardian's reporting, but it is difficult to evaluate how much credence to give to an article that is also problematic.
- k1m 7y agoI followed the Guardian's reporting on Corbyn. It was clearly aiming to damage him on the basis of very flimsy evidence. I worked on this page compiling a list of Guardian articles showing the extent the Guardian had gone to to paint Corbyn and Labour as antisemitic. https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ Now if the charges were true, you'd think it would continue to be a problem, especially now that a general election is getting so much closer. As Media Lens pointed out recently, it seems the media has lost interest in that particular attack: https://twitter.com/medialens/status/1169157686300217345 https://twitter.com/medialens/status/1169157686300217345 - which would suggest there wasn't much to it in the first place.
- toyg 7y agoGuardian editors have definitely decided Corbyn is the lesser evil, most of the hypercritical coverage is gone. The first year it was a non-stop barrage. The rest of the press is still mostly at it, though.
- shellac 7y agoI think it was aimed at getting him to stop excusing antisemites, which is an embarrassment. It's unclear what you think those links demonstrate, other than many writers thought that too. "So, @georgegalloway was right" is one of nature's warning signs.
- kingofpandora 7y agoAs a small aside, I'm always surprised to see that BBC is the most (?) common go-to source for run-of-the-mill non-technology news here at HN. If you think the Guardian is compromised as a neutral source, then let's talk about the Beeb sometime.
- toyg 7y agoWell, sometimes the Beeb's gov status is a protection, though. The Guardian can be more or less shut down by imperium, as a private company in this weird kingdom, and its employees can be sued into oblivion; the BBC works under different rules. After the Kelly affair, for example, the head was forced out, but as far as I know actual reporters were not touched. Compared with barging into an office and literally smashing all tools, it's easy-going. It is true that this situation comes at a cost, every government leans somewhat on its news desk (particularly on political issues), but in many ways that's actually easy to discount.
- jackweirdy 7y agoA protection from some things but not others. Since 2016 the editorial direction of the BBC is set by a board of 13, where 11 are appointed by the government: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-choose-bbc-board-john-whittingdale https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-cho...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- CalRobert 7y ago""" An error occurred during a connection to www.dailymaverick.co.za. Peer using unsupported version of security protocol. Error code: SSL_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION """ In Firefox 69...
- Nextgrid 7y agoJust wondering, why leak the documents to a select few newspapers that can be silenced instead of the whole world, if the goal is to tell the truth to the people at large? I’d love to see these goons go after every single one of the tens of thousands of seeders in hundreds of different countries if the documents were leaked on a popular torrent website.
- chongli 7y agoIf I had to guess, it's because the newspapers carry some credibility and have the ability to exercise editorial restraint, whereas the leakers are not journalists and so do not have such experience and credibility.
- michaelt 7y agoCredible journalists can reveal key facts derived from the leak while keeping other details secret. For example, a journalist could verify a leak came from a real FBI agent by checking their badge, and assure their readers of that, but keep the agent's name secret. Or a journalist given a list of secret base addresses could report the number and countries without revealing the precise addresses. Also, newspapers might be happier to make a big splash reporting an exclusive, but be less motivated if every other newspaper got the same stuff at the same time :)
- NullPrefix 7y agoThis website shows a popup about adblockers and the close button says "Naaah...journalists should go hungry." "Let me try to peddle some malware to you, you don't want me to go hungry, do you?"
- lnx01 7y agoYeah... So, this is a South African independent online-only publication for news. They also have an investigative arm. Investigative journalism is in the dumps in South Africa at the moment; on the one hand it's due to simple lack of anyone buying hard copies anymore, and on the other due to the powers that be (owners of publications) discouraging investigative journalism because it can get a bit close to home sometimes. I'm sure they're sorry about the ads, but they have to something. I donate a couple bucks to them every month.
- rnotaro 7y agoI personnaly thought it was a clever way and prefer that than an AdBlocker Wall. You can either : - Buy a no-ads pass. - Disable your AdBlocker - Click on "Naaah...journalists should go hungry."
- satori99 7y agoor - Context Menu->Delete Element
- stef25 7y agoIf Guardian has been compromised by anything it's surely by editors that are trying to turn in to a social justice organisation. Number of pages mentioning "white men" as indexed by Google: Guardian: 7840 / 3,680,000 (0.21%) BBC: 623 / 4,720,000 (0.01%) Some headlines of the Guardian that come to mind are "All landlords are scum" and "Maybe white men should just disappear for a while". In the case of the latter it was an interview with the USA's female national soccer captain and that line was something she just joked at the very end and the editor decided to make that the title of the article (if I'd have been her I'd have been furious). Another rage inducing article was one that nailed David Attenborough to the cross for daring to suggest climate change activism could benefit from separating it from left/right politics. This is all not directly related to politics, but it's pretty telling. The website / usability is great but the spin they (are pressured to?) put on the content is nauseating.
- jcranberry 7y ago'White men' is just a demographic category. 4.37% (1790/41,000) of fivethirtyeight sites indexed by google mention white men. If anything it's just indicative of The Guardian using less precise terminology than the BBC, which I'm sure discusses the demographic or subdemographics of white, male British people every now and then. It seems that you are saying that they use sensationalized titles and publish contentious opinion pieces. I hate these tendencies on news orgs as well. But the Guardian isn't nearly as bad as HuffPost or Vox and the like in this regard.
- Dylan16807 7y agoThere are severe problems with how we handle land ownership so I don't find that hyperbole rage inducing / infuriating. The idea of white men "disappearing for a while" is new to me and it sounds like an amazing idea. How better to shake up entrenched power structures? Spread around the leadership roles and experience, and then once that settles combine everyone back and you can end up with a much better mix at all levels.
- whenchamenia 7y agoYour racism is showing.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoSo in summary: - The Guardian is more Blairite than Corbynite. This one is not a surprise. - Relations between MI6 and The Guardian got worse with Snowden, and then got better again. This isn't shocking. The UK is running out of top-tier independent media platforms. This is concerning. But the dominance of millionaire-owned right-wing tabloids, and the failure to implement any of the recommendations of the Leveson report is far more concerning.
- dannyw 7y agoThis is some real investigative journalism that should overtake the pro-establishment propaganda that passes for 'news'.
- intricatedetail 7y agoThis is load of crap. Just Google what they kept writing about cannabis. Independent... all press feeds off big pharma.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y agoThe one sentence below the article makes me sceptical: > Daily Maverick will formally launch Declassified – a new UK-focused investigation and analysis organisation run by the authors of this article – in November 2019. This would give them a strong motivation to write a biased or even non-factual article to a) generate attention and b) paint themselves as more credible, or at least a direct competitor as less credible.
- MichaelMoser123 7y agoI have a stupid question: how does this committe know in advance what a newspaper is about to be publishing? I mean in order to give advanced notices they need to know what the newspaper is up to?
- diodesign 7y agoCredible journalists contact governments, businesses, individuals, and any other subjects of articles, ahead of publication to ask for official comment, interviews, on-the-record explanations and confirmations, and so on. It's basic due diligence to speak to both sides of a story. However, it can tip off organizations and folks that they are about to be a headline...
- mipo5 7y agoIt's a paradox. On one hand, we want freedom of speech and want all information to be publicly accessible and visible to everybody. On the other hand, we want criminals to be in jail and we want the borders of our countries to be untouched. We can't have both though.
- JetSpiegel 7y agoCtrl+F Greenwald ... No results Ctrl+F Intercepted ... No results The question "Can you write an article about Snowden and The Guardian without mentioning Glenn Greenwald" has been answered. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald https://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald