3 ms·

This counterproductive use of the courts is just the latest development in a story which doesn't quite add up. Miranda said that the police asked him to hand ov

This counterproductive use of the courts is just the latest development in a story which doesn't quite add up. Miranda said that the police asked him to hand over all his passwords ("they got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone"), and (in the same interview) claimed "he didn't have a role", but then Rusbridger says (in the same article) that "[Greenwald] is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work." Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the passwords! Greenwald, the Guardian et. al don't get it: in order to convince me that they are in the right about surveillance, they need to be beyond reproach. I don't necessarily agree with the use of surveillance programs, but I certainly don't agree with the cynical truth-mangling tactics of the other side: because the truth is really the only advantage that side has. How did we get into this situation?

lhnz 13y ago
Only somebody that believes in black-and-white separation between good and evil would insist that the good guys have to be beyond all reproach. Life isn't that simple.
ferdo 13y ago
> they need to be beyond reproach I don't understand this thinking. Greenwald and the Guardian have very little power in comparison to the intel agencies and governments they report on. Why is their conduct more important than the people they're reporting on, people we already know are misusing law and the power of government? If anything, intel agencies and governments need to convince me they're beyond reproach or I'm just going to assume that their amoral ways will only get worse.
- DeeplySuspect 13y ago
  All I want is the truth. The details are inconsistent - someone's being economical with the truth. We found out that the NSA lied repeatedly, and I'll be bitterly disappointed if the other side doesn't hold itself to the high standards it (and we) expect of our governments.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    I trust Greenwald more than I trust the NSA and the government. Glenn doesn't spy on me, for one.
    - DeeplySuspect 13y ago
      Another inconsistency: check out Greenwald's original write-up [1] > At the time the "security official" called me, David had > been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me > that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours > in order to question him, at which point they could > either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the > question time. The official [...] said David was not > allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow > me to talk to him. But then, in the report on Greenwald's detention [2]: > He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he > refused both because he did not trust the authorities. Let's be honest: if the official was lying, Greenwald would have pointed it out. So why didn't he? Greenwald just presumes that I'll believe him since he's so much more trustworthy than a sinister figure on the end of a phone. That presumption must end. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-i...
      - ferdo 13y ago
        Miranda was offered a government lawyer at first, not one of his own choosing. He was smart to refuse their stupid offer.
        DeeplySuspect 13y ago
        He was smart to refuse the lawyer, but Greenwald's assertion that Miranda was not allowed a lawyer present was not actually grounded in reality. This whole thing stinks.
        13y ago
ceejayoz 13y ago
> Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the passwords! Why is this impossible? Of course he knows his mobile phone and laptop password. It's entirely possible, though, and maybe even likely, that he doesn't have the decryption passphrases for the data he's couriering on them. People hosting a Tor node do the same thing - they transport data without knowing what's in it.

lhnz 13y ago

Only somebody that believes in black-and-white separation between good and evil would insist that the good guys have to be beyond all reproach. Life isn't that simple.

ferdo 13y ago

> they need to be beyond reproach I don't understand this thinking. Greenwald and the Guardian have very little power in comparison to the intel agencies and governments they report on. Why is their conduct more important than the people they're reporting on, people we already know are misusing law and the power of government? If anything, intel agencies and governments need to convince me they're beyond reproach or I'm just going to assume that their amoral ways will only get worse.

DeeplySuspect 13y ago
All I want is the truth. The details are inconsistent - someone's being economical with the truth. We found out that the NSA lied repeatedly, and I'll be bitterly disappointed if the other side doesn't hold itself to the high standards it (and we) expect of our governments.
- ferdo 13y ago
  I trust Greenwald more than I trust the NSA and the government. Glenn doesn't spy on me, for one.
  - DeeplySuspect 13y ago
    Another inconsistency: check out Greenwald's original write-up [1] > At the time the "security official" called me, David had > been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me > that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours > in order to question him, at which point they could > either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the > question time. The official [...] said David was not > allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow > me to talk to him. But then, in the report on Greenwald's detention [2]: > He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he > refused both because he did not trust the authorities. Let's be honest: if the official was lying, Greenwald would have pointed it out. So why didn't he? Greenwald just presumes that I'll believe him since he's so much more trustworthy than a sinister figure on the end of a phone. That presumption must end. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-i...
    - ferdo 13y ago
      Miranda was offered a government lawyer at first, not one of his own choosing. He was smart to refuse their stupid offer.
      - DeeplySuspect 13y ago
        He was smart to refuse the lawyer, but Greenwald's assertion that Miranda was not allowed a lawyer present was not actually grounded in reality. This whole thing stinks.
        13y ago

ceejayoz 13y ago

> Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the passwords! Why is this impossible? Of course he knows his mobile phone and laptop password. It's entirely possible, though, and maybe even likely, that he doesn't have the decryption passphrases for the data he's couriering on them. People hosting a Tor node do the same thing - they transport data without knowing what's in it.