4 ms·

As I understand it, the Guardian had previously always considered D-notice requests and had usually acquiesced. However, it decided that Snowden was so importan

As 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 ago
Ignoring 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 ago
  Hmm, dischuffed has always seemed to be used simply for unhappy. Superlative Antonym: Chuffed to little mint balls.
- Angostura 7y ago
  You raise an interesting point which I shall have to ponder. But can't I be disappointed by a particular movie, without being previously ... appointed ... by another from the same fim maker?
  - Singletoned 7y ago
    I'm pondering this too, and I'm willing to be wrong on it, but I would have said that you can't be disappointed by a movie without having had some sort of raised expectation about it. If you thought it would be rubbish you wouldn't be disappointed. "Dis" always suggests to me some sort of removal, rather than just the absence of.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      My dislike of mornings does not, I hope, suggest I ever liked them. A disability isn't always an ability that's lost. etc. So many exceptions, I sometimes wonder how others ever end up learning good English. :)
- abainbridge 7y ago
  The dis- prefix just means "not". https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis- https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-
  - Singletoned 7y ago
    The link you posted starts by giving three definitions, only one of which corresponds with "not". Maybe you meant to post a different link?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      It adequately demonstrates that “dis-” does not necessarily imply anything more than “not”, which is all the weight it needs to carry in this discussion about whether “dischuffed” must, because of the prefix, mean “formerly chuffed but no longer”, instead of merely “not chuffed”.
- iicc 7y ago
  doubleplusunchuffed
- jcranberry 7y ago
  I don't find that 'dissatisfied' or 'discontent' imply a previous satisfaction or contentment.
raxxorrax 7y ago
The "people could die" argument is very weak and I would assume it to always be a self-serving assertion by government or the intelligence community. If this situation would not be the responsibility of agencies breaking the law in the first place, it is no excuse for the state to break fundamental rights of citizens. Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility. There were no repercussions for the agencies to employ mass surveillance. This is a danger that is magnitudes greater than leaks being dangerous for spies, who know about the dangers of their profession.
- jcranberry 7y ago
  Not all classified information a newspaper gets its hands on reveals illegal activity. >Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility. It doesn't need to have credibility if it's obviously true. If the Guardian has information on things such as sensitive military information or CIA operative locations and identities, revealing it could obviously result in loss of life and may not directly involve private US citizens in any capacity. The idea that the pre-existing dangers of a profession are a justification to put people's lives in danger is just so ridiculous. If you put a bullet in the head of an enlisted man, just because he knew signing up his life might be at risk one day doesn't absolve you of being responsible for their death.
  - ivanhoe 7y ago
    There's also zero public interest in publishing that type of operational secrets so it's very unlikely for them to be published on purpose, making it not-a-problem really.
  - markdown 7y ago
    All a news org should have to do is give the spooks advance notice about what you're about to publish. Then it's on them to extract anyone who they deem to be at risk.
- 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Ignoring 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 ago
Hmm, dischuffed has always seemed to be used simply for unhappy. Superlative Antonym: Chuffed to little mint balls.
Angostura 7y ago
You raise an interesting point which I shall have to ponder. But can't I be disappointed by a particular movie, without being previously ... appointed ... by another from the same fim maker?
- Singletoned 7y ago
  I'm pondering this too, and I'm willing to be wrong on it, but I would have said that you can't be disappointed by a movie without having had some sort of raised expectation about it. If you thought it would be rubbish you wouldn't be disappointed. "Dis" always suggests to me some sort of removal, rather than just the absence of.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    My dislike of mornings does not, I hope, suggest I ever liked them. A disability isn't always an ability that's lost. etc. So many exceptions, I sometimes wonder how others ever end up learning good English. :)
abainbridge 7y ago
The dis- prefix just means "not". https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis- https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-
- Singletoned 7y ago
  The link you posted starts by giving three definitions, only one of which corresponds with "not". Maybe you meant to post a different link?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    It adequately demonstrates that “dis-” does not necessarily imply anything more than “not”, which is all the weight it needs to carry in this discussion about whether “dischuffed” must, because of the prefix, mean “formerly chuffed but no longer”, instead of merely “not chuffed”.
iicc 7y ago
doubleplusunchuffed
jcranberry 7y ago
I don't find that 'dissatisfied' or 'discontent' imply a previous satisfaction or contentment.

raxxorrax 7y ago

The "people could die" argument is very weak and I would assume it to always be a self-serving assertion by government or the intelligence community. If this situation would not be the responsibility of agencies breaking the law in the first place, it is no excuse for the state to break fundamental rights of citizens. Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility. There were no repercussions for the agencies to employ mass surveillance. This is a danger that is magnitudes greater than leaks being dangerous for spies, who know about the dangers of their profession.

jcranberry 7y ago
Not all classified information a newspaper gets its hands on reveals illegal activity. >Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility. It doesn't need to have credibility if it's obviously true. If the Guardian has information on things such as sensitive military information or CIA operative locations and identities, revealing it could obviously result in loss of life and may not directly involve private US citizens in any capacity. The idea that the pre-existing dangers of a profession are a justification to put people's lives in danger is just so ridiculous. If you put a bullet in the head of an enlisted man, just because he knew signing up his life might be at risk one day doesn't absolve you of being responsible for their death.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  There's also zero public interest in publishing that type of operational secrets so it's very unlikely for them to be published on purpose, making it not-a-problem really.
- markdown 7y ago
  All a news org should have to do is give the spooks advance notice about what you're about to publish. Then it's on them to extract anyone who they deem to be at risk.
7y ago