4 ms·

Britain forced Guardian to destroy copy of Snowden material

40 points by danboarder 13y ago

ballard 13y ago
SWAT proof def. a distribute system where content is sufficiently replicated and anonimized, and can survive partial loss. Whereas storing on a single server at your or your friends' house is not. Present examples may include Tahoe LAFS
kalleboo 13y ago
Do they actually believe they've destroyed any data, or is this just a mob-style show of power?
- gotofritz 13y ago
  I think the latter
digitalengineer 13y ago
I feel like pretty soon we'll need 'Johnny Mnemonic' style data smugglers just to get data from one country to another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo
Questioneer 13y ago
I beg of you all, stop with the immediate reaction of trying to figure a way to code around men with lawyers and assault rifles. Think of where this leads, the current actors who have taken this route. Hosts are "bulletproof" operators sacrificing themselves until raided or de-peered for a low low(high) cost. Nights are slaved away making private end to end networks of proxies and vpns, built to buffer contact from your own servers. You end up paying people to buy your phones. In the end most are jailed after 'parallel' investigations are made upon them. Associates are thrown in jail with violent offenders so they can be used as snitches when they flip. You are threatened with rape by men of law, "those boys will fuck you good." Enough with the pathetic urges to code out of this. Please.
- jgg 13y ago
  You know, it's funny. There's this image cultivated of some elite team of soldiers waiting to snipe a pasty nerd at his computer as he attempts to write the characters "#include <openssl/" for civil disobedience, and yet when I take a stroll around firearms enthusiast sites (a group much more directly threatening to the government at large), I (still) find references to this: http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/ http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-sup... ? How can it be that active-duty soldiers working for the government advocating civilians owning firearms for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government if and when it becomes tyrannical doesn't warrant the "lawyers and assault rifles" approach, but an intelligent person creating the next great encryption application does? Hmm... The only thing worse than a decline into fascism is not doing something when you should because of the ironic fear of what is going to happen when you do...
acron0 13y ago
"In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized." Oh well, that's it then. The data's all gone now. Job done, boys. Bravo.
random42 13y ago
"*Britain* forced Guardian to destroy..." "*a british official* advised ... " "*two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters* ... visited the Guardian's London offices." ".... was detained by *British authorities* ...." "the NSA", "the Government" etc. One of the tactical mistake is not to "name" people on the other side this asymmetric warfare against the world police states, and put the individuals in the spotlight. The of agencies and governments is abstract and non-tangible. Unlike the "Snowdens, Mannings, Greenwalds and Mirandas" they do not have fear, and hence accountability. At the end of the day, these agencies are made of people, who make decisions. While the aim should be to keep the 'agencies' under check, the general population resisting them need to target (and I do not mean attack their home or family members or something like that, I only mean to put the individuals under the spotlight) to "name and shame" the entity with feelings, family, emotions, weaknesses etc. under scrutiny. Just as the Snowdens and the greenwalds choices come with with the consequences, so should be the case for the british officials who chose to take a stand.
- danboarder 13y ago
  Or perhaps the Guardian staff don't want to bring down more hell on themselves? It might seem cowardly from an armchair quarterback position but I would expect they are thinking things through.
  - random42 13y ago
    I do not think it is cowardly. It is just the existing convention of reporting.

40 points by danboarder 13y ago

SWAT proof def. a distribute system where content is sufficiently replicated and anonimized, and can survive partial loss. Whereas storing on a single server at your or your friends' house is not. Present examples may include Tahoe LAFS

kalleboo 13y ago

Do they actually believe they've destroyed any data, or is this just a mob-style show of power?

gotofritz 13y ago
I think the latter

digitalengineer 13y ago

I feel like pretty soon we'll need 'Johnny Mnemonic' style data smugglers just to get data from one country to another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo

Questioneer 13y ago

I beg of you all, stop with the immediate reaction of trying to figure a way to code around men with lawyers and assault rifles. Think of where this leads, the current actors who have taken this route. Hosts are "bulletproof" operators sacrificing themselves until raided or de-peered for a low low(high) cost. Nights are slaved away making private end to end networks of proxies and vpns, built to buffer contact from your own servers. You end up paying people to buy your phones. In the end most are jailed after 'parallel' investigations are made upon them. Associates are thrown in jail with violent offenders so they can be used as snitches when they flip. You are threatened with rape by men of law, "those boys will fuck you good." Enough with the pathetic urges to code out of this. Please.

jgg 13y ago
You know, it's funny. There's this image cultivated of some elite team of soldiers waiting to snipe a pasty nerd at his computer as he attempts to write the characters "#include <openssl/" for civil disobedience, and yet when I take a stroll around firearms enthusiast sites (a group much more directly threatening to the government at large), I (still) find references to this: http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/ http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-sup... ? How can it be that active-duty soldiers working for the government advocating civilians owning firearms for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government if and when it becomes tyrannical doesn't warrant the "lawyers and assault rifles" approach, but an intelligent person creating the next great encryption application does? Hmm... The only thing worse than a decline into fascism is not doing something when you should because of the ironic fear of what is going to happen when you do...

acron0 13y ago

"In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized." Oh well, that's it then. The data's all gone now. Job done, boys. Bravo.

random42 13y ago

"*Britain* forced Guardian to destroy..." "*a british official* advised ... " "*two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters* ... visited the Guardian's London offices." ".... was detained by *British authorities* ...." "the NSA", "the Government" etc. One of the tactical mistake is not to "name" people on the other side this asymmetric warfare against the world police states, and put the individuals in the spotlight. The of agencies and governments is abstract and non-tangible. Unlike the "Snowdens, Mannings, Greenwalds and Mirandas" they do not have fear, and hence accountability. At the end of the day, these agencies are made of people, who make decisions. While the aim should be to keep the 'agencies' under check, the general population resisting them need to target (and I do not mean attack their home or family members or something like that, I only mean to put the individuals under the spotlight) to "name and shame" the entity with feelings, family, emotions, weaknesses etc. under scrutiny. Just as the Snowdens and the greenwalds choices come with with the consequences, so should be the case for the british officials who chose to take a stand.

danboarder 13y ago
Or perhaps the Guardian staff don't want to bring down more hell on themselves? It might seem cowardly from an armchair quarterback position but I would expect they are thinking things through.
- random42 13y ago
  I do not think it is cowardly. It is just the existing convention of reporting.