9 ms·

David Miranda Heathrow detention: No 10 'kept abreast of operation'

119 points by tpatke 13y ago

rwmj 13y ago
I really wish the BBC would link to original sources, and also that the Home Office would publish statements first on the website[1] where there is (currently) no mention of any statement. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publication_filter_option=all&topics[]=all&departments[]=home-office&world_locations[]=all&direction=before&date=2013-09-01&commit=Refresh+results https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publica...
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Indeed. The BBC don't cite sources - they state everything as fact and editorialise terribly. You don't know if you're reading a product press release (like their tech news comes across as) or a political statement from the government (which ALL of their health news comes across as). This makes me distrust them more than most I think.
eksith 13y ago
This title is confusing : "UK defends Miranda airport detention". The article itself says "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data". Also it seems to be a small blurb of an unofficial comment since there doesn't seem to be a link to an original, official, source.
- estel 13y ago
  This was formerly the correct title of the BBC's article, but the source article has since been modified.
mercurial 13y ago
The article is a 5 sentences "breaking news" piece not really worth reading. There is a single official quote which goes: The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism". I guess it's easier when you just have to phone the White House instead of having to write your own policies :(
einhverfr 13y ago
let's see.... News about the guardian's hard drives being destroyed, the Miranda detention, and Groklaw shutting down all at once today? It is not a good day.
- prawn 13y ago
  One in a succession of many! I had to laugh at myself when the one glimmer of hope in my taking of this recent series of events, was the distraction of John Carmack joining Oculus Rift. I went from quite thorough disillusionment to dreaming of the future of technology, just for the few hours afterwards.
tpatke 13y ago
The article rehashes some old stuff. ...but the point is that the Home Office is officially supporting the action. The key quote is near the end: "If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning." So, if you oppose this sort of action, you are condoning terrorism. What does that make you? Hmmm... Not sure I like where this is heading.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ihsw 13y ago
Personally I think that if terrorists want to destroy our way of life then they're going to need to do it themselves -- I won't do it for them by supporting draconian, baseless, and broad-sweeping laws that delegate powers to people with questionable motives. If we ask these politicians how long it will take to stop the terrorist threat then I'm certain they'd respond "Years, decades, however long it takes." Safety, at all costs, is a prison cell.
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  > if terrorists want to destroy our way of life We should stop thinking the things that we've been brainwashed with. The basics are really simple: Don't be a d#ck and people will not hate you (and crazies will not be able to recruit "terrorists"). (If we had the chance to really get to know the people we call "terrorists", we'd find that even they would like to live their lives in peace and respect, before anything else, just like the rest of us.)
  - 001sky 13y ago
    People dancing in the streets celebrating babies being killed.... Those aren't the terrorists. Thos are like the Justin Bieber fans of terrorism. Terrorism is a supply and demand thing. Killing babies gets some people excited and motivated. On the other side. Its like the war on drugs, that overlooks the DEMAND for drugs. Terrorism is borne out of a demand for bloodshed. The terrorists just supply the blood of women and children, because that's the lowest hanging fruit (the easiest high, if you will). So, at some level, I still agree with you that these' people are f'd up to be so bloodthirsty, its really still a more complex problem. As long as a baby killer is a hero, we will have baby killers. It really has nothing to do with the 'guilt' of the baby (that exploitation of the innocence of the victim, is actually the "terror" in terrorism).
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      People dance in the streets for everything in the Arab world. I can assure you that there is lots of hootin' and hollerin' in Indiana about similar atrocities visited upon our enemies - we just don't dance, is all.
harrytuttle 13y ago
Let me rephrase: "The Home Office" is defending the airport detention. I doubt anyone in this country agrees with them under the circumstances[1] and by no means do they act on behalf of us. [1] bar some Daily Mail reading crackheads.
jacquesm 13y ago
The actual title is "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data", not "UK defends Miranda airport detention", it looks like it has been changed on the BBC site.
speeder 13y ago
I think this would be a great time for the Queen to speech up and prove she is not just a touristic attraction. Unfortunately I know well she won't dispel my frustrations
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Really? And blow the monarchy's neutrality? Defy the voted for will of the people? Given the tone of your post, can I assume you would want her to do this in order to undermine the monarchy?
  - speeder 13y ago
    I don't get it... Why this would undermine monarchy? You are saying that british people EXPECTS the queen to do nothing when people are doing shit? Wtf of system is that?
    - weavejester 13y ago
      It's called representative democracy.
    - precisioncoder 13y ago
      The UK isn't a monarchy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy Basically the royal family has mostly ceremonial duties not political ones.
    - johneth 13y ago
      You obviously don't understand the relationship of the Queen and the UK government. She is a non-political 'figurehead' head of state. She represents the state. She has to be non-political and neutral, as she is unelected. If she started spouting off her own opinions on various things (even if you might agree with them), then it would undermine this relationship to such an extent that in all likelihood, the monarchy would be abolished.
    - cwp 13y ago
toyg 13y ago
Way to go, BBC: choosing the darkest possible picture of David Miranda, where he's tired and distraught, so that he can look like a "brownie terrorist" as much as possible. Very classy. I'm not saying they should have airbrushed him WillSmith-style, but he looks a much more regular chap in here: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/19/1376928526343/David-Miranda-010.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...
- anonymous 13y ago
  Actually, to me he looks darker and terroristier in your picture, due to being photographed against a light background.
MarcScott 13y ago
Miranda was held under the Terrorism Act. The interpretation of terrorism as defined by the act can be found here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure some of you reading this have knowledge of the law. I would like to know how this act can be applied in these circumstances.
- grey-area 13y ago
  We haven't heard from the Home Office or the police why this was legal, only that they think it was. So we don't really have any substantiated arguments as to how a person could be held under a terrorism law for questioning about journalists. I'd be very interested to hear them argue that it was legal in front of a judge, so I'm pleased Miranda has now taken legal action. Let's hope that it gets past letters from his lawyers and the government try to justify their position in court. EDIT - letter to the home office just released: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/david-miranda-letter-home-office http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/dav...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
r0h1n 13y ago
I see we've gone from "helping terrorists" to "helping terrorism". What does that even mean?! Edit: Sorry, deleted multiple instances of the same comment. The HN App I use (by Mark Bishop) always acts funny when I submit comments and stories through it.
Svip 13y ago
I have noticed a tendency to refer to Edward Snowden as anything but 'whistleblower' in the American press. Now, however, even the BBC seems to be using the term 'fugitive'. Strange as it may seem, the Danish press[0] refers to Mr Snowden as 'whistleblower', although my largest issue with this usage is that the word is not Danish, but I applaud the sentiment. I wonder what the term used is in other countries. [0] I can confirm that Politiken (left-leaning), Information (far left) and Berlingske Tidende (right wing) refers to Snowden as a whistleblower.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Technically he is a fugitive and whistleblower. Fugitive: A person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, esp. to avoid arrest or persecution. However I understand your point. The word makes it sound like he has done something wrong.
  - Symmetry 13y ago
    That is technically true, but also horribly unfair since there are a lot of connotations around people being fugitives that don't fit in this case. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
nicholassmith 13y ago
The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an abuse of a law designed to specifically deal with terrorism. The difference between 'carrying documents to terrorists' and 'carrying documents that if leaked by accident to terrorists would have large national security implications' is huge. If you're carrying classified documents relating to a country's national security apparatus the likelihood is they're going to find something to trap you on, but the way they're going about it is thoroughly dishonest and sleazy. If you oppose the action of retrieving information and abusing one of our laws, then you must be in favour of terrorism and on the list you go. It's another warning basically, keep your head down or face the consequences. Add it on with the U.S. gov pushing for 60 years for Manning, and high level members of the UK government threatening legal action against a newspaper if they don't turn over/destroy material facts in an ongoing series of investigative journalism.
- danenania 13y ago
  Yep, they could just as well say "You have lots of money in your bank account, which could be used to support terrorism". Or: "You've been making anti-government tweets. That could inspire terrorism." With a bit of twisted logic, anyone and anything can be connected in some way to terrorism, which is why vague laws like these allow governments to violate the rights of anyone for any reason, as this incident clearly demonstrates.
  - nicholassmith 13y ago
    The funny thing is it means anyone carrying information related to state security, even if they're involved with it at a senior level, could be pulled under Section 7 in an airport. There's the potential for data leaks there, possibly in an even greater way due to the rampant lack of ability when it comes to technology in the UK government.
josephlord 13y ago
But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism". Can obviously be extended to: But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen property that would help terrorism". And therefore anti-terrorism laws can be used in any scenario involving anything that could possibly be useful to terrorists (cars, boats, wheelbarrows...).
ck2 13y ago
If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act Yeah, well let's say you could remotely justify the warped logic that journalism is terrorism (which you cannot but let's just suppose). You didn't just seize their possessions, you seized the individual for the full nine hours you were allowed and didn't charge them with anything. So, this was premeditated harassment because they told the US government they were going to hold him while he was still on the flight. You just wanted him to suffer.
qwerty_asdf 13y ago
Just what precisely is this "No 10" business? So, like, "No 10" says it's justified. I don't understand what "No 10" is.
- eCa 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street
  - qwerty_asdf 13y ago
    Ah... so does that make them 8 below a "number two"?
rogerthis 13y ago
On this ongoing battle between secret services and that journalist, I side with nobody, except OLJC.

119 points by tpatke 13y ago

rwmj 13y ago

I really wish the BBC would link to original sources, and also that the Home Office would publish statements first on the website[1] where there is (currently) no mention of any statement. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publication_filter_option=all&topics[]=all&departments[]=home-office&world_locations[]=all&direction=before&date=2013-09-01&commit=Refresh+results https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publica...

harrytuttle 13y ago
Indeed. The BBC don't cite sources - they state everything as fact and editorialise terribly. You don't know if you're reading a product press release (like their tech news comes across as) or a political statement from the government (which ALL of their health news comes across as). This makes me distrust them more than most I think.

eksith 13y ago

This title is confusing : "UK defends Miranda airport detention". The article itself says "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data". Also it seems to be a small blurb of an unofficial comment since there doesn't seem to be a link to an original, official, source.

estel 13y ago
This was formerly the correct title of the BBC's article, but the source article has since been modified.

mercurial 13y ago

The article is a 5 sentences "breaking news" piece not really worth reading. There is a single official quote which goes: The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism". I guess it's easier when you just have to phone the White House instead of having to write your own policies :(

einhverfr 13y ago

let's see.... News about the guardian's hard drives being destroyed, the Miranda detention, and Groklaw shutting down all at once today? It is not a good day.

prawn 13y ago
One in a succession of many! I had to laugh at myself when the one glimmer of hope in my taking of this recent series of events, was the distraction of John Carmack joining Oculus Rift. I went from quite thorough disillusionment to dreaming of the future of technology, just for the few hours afterwards.

tpatke 13y ago

The article rehashes some old stuff. ...but the point is that the Home Office is officially supporting the action. The key quote is near the end: "If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning." So, if you oppose this sort of action, you are condoning terrorism. What does that make you? Hmmm... Not sure I like where this is heading.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ihsw 13y ago

Personally I think that if terrorists want to destroy our way of life then they're going to need to do it themselves -- I won't do it for them by supporting draconian, baseless, and broad-sweeping laws that delegate powers to people with questionable motives. If we ask these politicians how long it will take to stop the terrorist threat then I'm certain they'd respond "Years, decades, however long it takes." Safety, at all costs, is a prison cell.

frank_boyd 13y ago
> if terrorists want to destroy our way of life We should stop thinking the things that we've been brainwashed with. The basics are really simple: Don't be a d#ck and people will not hate you (and crazies will not be able to recruit "terrorists"). (If we had the chance to really get to know the people we call "terrorists", we'd find that even they would like to live their lives in peace and respect, before anything else, just like the rest of us.)
- 001sky 13y ago
  People dancing in the streets celebrating babies being killed.... Those aren't the terrorists. Thos are like the Justin Bieber fans of terrorism. Terrorism is a supply and demand thing. Killing babies gets some people excited and motivated. On the other side. Its like the war on drugs, that overlooks the DEMAND for drugs. Terrorism is borne out of a demand for bloodshed. The terrorists just supply the blood of women and children, because that's the lowest hanging fruit (the easiest high, if you will). So, at some level, I still agree with you that these' people are f'd up to be so bloodthirsty, its really still a more complex problem. As long as a baby killer is a hero, we will have baby killers. It really has nothing to do with the 'guilt' of the baby (that exploitation of the innocence of the victim, is actually the "terror" in terrorism).
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    People dance in the streets for everything in the Arab world. I can assure you that there is lots of hootin' and hollerin' in Indiana about similar atrocities visited upon our enemies - we just don't dance, is all.

harrytuttle 13y ago

Let me rephrase: "The Home Office" is defending the airport detention. I doubt anyone in this country agrees with them under the circumstances[1] and by no means do they act on behalf of us. [1] bar some Daily Mail reading crackheads.

jacquesm 13y ago

The actual title is "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data", not "UK defends Miranda airport detention", it looks like it has been changed on the BBC site.

speeder 13y ago

I think this would be a great time for the Queen to speech up and prove she is not just a touristic attraction. Unfortunately I know well she won't dispel my frustrations

alan_cx 13y ago
Really? And blow the monarchy's neutrality? Defy the voted for will of the people? Given the tone of your post, can I assume you would want her to do this in order to undermine the monarchy?
- speeder 13y ago
  I don't get it... Why this would undermine monarchy? You are saying that british people EXPECTS the queen to do nothing when people are doing shit? Wtf of system is that?
  - weavejester 13y ago
    It's called representative democracy.
  - precisioncoder 13y ago
    The UK isn't a monarchy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy Basically the royal family has mostly ceremonial duties not political ones.
  - johneth 13y ago
    You obviously don't understand the relationship of the Queen and the UK government. She is a non-political 'figurehead' head of state. She represents the state. She has to be non-political and neutral, as she is unelected. If she started spouting off her own opinions on various things (even if you might agree with them), then it would undermine this relationship to such an extent that in all likelihood, the monarchy would be abolished.
  - cwp 13y ago

toyg 13y ago

Way to go, BBC: choosing the darkest possible picture of David Miranda, where he's tired and distraught, so that he can look like a "brownie terrorist" as much as possible. Very classy. I'm not saying they should have airbrushed him WillSmith-style, but he looks a much more regular chap in here: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/19/1376928526343/David-Miranda-010.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...

anonymous 13y ago
Actually, to me he looks darker and terroristier in your picture, due to being photographed against a light background.

MarcScott 13y ago

Miranda was held under the Terrorism Act. The interpretation of terrorism as defined by the act can be found here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure some of you reading this have knowledge of the law. I would like to know how this act can be applied in these circumstances.

grey-area 13y ago
We haven't heard from the Home Office or the police why this was legal, only that they think it was. So we don't really have any substantiated arguments as to how a person could be held under a terrorism law for questioning about journalists. I'd be very interested to hear them argue that it was legal in front of a judge, so I'm pleased Miranda has now taken legal action. Let's hope that it gets past letters from his lawyers and the government try to justify their position in court. EDIT - letter to the home office just released: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/david-miranda-letter-home-office http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/dav...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

r0h1n 13y ago

I see we've gone from "helping terrorists" to "helping terrorism". What does that even mean?! Edit: Sorry, deleted multiple instances of the same comment. The HN App I use (by Mark Bishop) always acts funny when I submit comments and stories through it.

Svip 13y ago

I have noticed a tendency to refer to Edward Snowden as anything but 'whistleblower' in the American press. Now, however, even the BBC seems to be using the term 'fugitive'. Strange as it may seem, the Danish press[0] refers to Mr Snowden as 'whistleblower', although my largest issue with this usage is that the word is not Danish, but I applaud the sentiment. I wonder what the term used is in other countries. [0] I can confirm that Politiken (left-leaning), Information (far left) and Berlingske Tidende (right wing) refers to Snowden as a whistleblower.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
Technically he is a fugitive and whistleblower. Fugitive: A person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, esp. to avoid arrest or persecution. However I understand your point. The word makes it sound like he has done something wrong.
- Symmetry 13y ago
  That is technically true, but also horribly unfair since there are a lot of connotations around people being fugitives that don't fit in this case. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

nicholassmith 13y ago

The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an abuse of a law designed to specifically deal with terrorism. The difference between 'carrying documents to terrorists' and 'carrying documents that if leaked by accident to terrorists would have large national security implications' is huge. If you're carrying classified documents relating to a country's national security apparatus the likelihood is they're going to find something to trap you on, but the way they're going about it is thoroughly dishonest and sleazy. If you oppose the action of retrieving information and abusing one of our laws, then you must be in favour of terrorism and on the list you go. It's another warning basically, keep your head down or face the consequences. Add it on with the U.S. gov pushing for 60 years for Manning, and high level members of the UK government threatening legal action against a newspaper if they don't turn over/destroy material facts in an ongoing series of investigative journalism.

danenania 13y ago
Yep, they could just as well say "You have lots of money in your bank account, which could be used to support terrorism". Or: "You've been making anti-government tweets. That could inspire terrorism." With a bit of twisted logic, anyone and anything can be connected in some way to terrorism, which is why vague laws like these allow governments to violate the rights of anyone for any reason, as this incident clearly demonstrates.
- nicholassmith 13y ago
  The funny thing is it means anyone carrying information related to state security, even if they're involved with it at a senior level, could be pulled under Section 7 in an airport. There's the potential for data leaks there, possibly in an even greater way due to the rampant lack of ability when it comes to technology in the UK government.

josephlord 13y ago

But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism". Can obviously be extended to: But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen property that would help terrorism". And therefore anti-terrorism laws can be used in any scenario involving anything that could possibly be useful to terrorists (cars, boats, wheelbarrows...).

ck2 13y ago

If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act Yeah, well let's say you could remotely justify the warped logic that journalism is terrorism (which you cannot but let's just suppose). You didn't just seize their possessions, you seized the individual for the full nine hours you were allowed and didn't charge them with anything. So, this was premeditated harassment because they told the US government they were going to hold him while he was still on the flight. You just wanted him to suffer.

qwerty_asdf 13y ago

Just what precisely is this "No 10" business? So, like, "No 10" says it's justified. I don't understand what "No 10" is.

eCa 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street
- qwerty_asdf 13y ago
  Ah... so does that make them 8 below a "number two"?

rogerthis 13y ago

On this ongoing battle between secret services and that journalist, I side with nobody, except OLJC.