4 ms·

David Miranda: High Court restricts inspection of data

49 points by UVB-76 13y ago

UVB-76 13y ago
Note the exception -- "(...) except for the purposes of national security." In other words, this injunction isn't worth the paper it's written on...
- Zikes 13y ago
  Indeed. If it wasn't seized for purposes of "national security" then why was it seized at all?
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > In other words, this injunction isn't worth the paper it's written on... You mean in nonsense you just made up right?
  - UVB-76 13y ago
    I don't see what you mean. The wording of the article has changed since I quoted it, but the meaning is the same; the material "can only be examined for national security purposes, judges say." The police seized the material precisely because it constituted a national security concern.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > I don't see what you mean. You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. > The police seized the material precisely because it constituted a national security concern. Exactly, and the injunction now prevents them from using this for any other reason.
      - UVB-76 13y ago
        > You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. They have an opinion, I have an opinion. You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. > Exactly, and the injunction now prevents them from using this for any other reason. This injunction prevents the authorities from doing what, exactly, with the seized materials? By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing?
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. > By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing? Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed.
        UVB-76 13y ago
        > I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. She is hardly going to come out and say "This ruling is a disaster; we haven't achieved anything for our client." > Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed. All the data stored on the seized devices is going to be closely scrutinised regardless, just under the guise of protecting national security. They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this.
coldcode 13y ago
If I never hear the stupid term "National Security" ever again I will be a happy camper.
joejohnson 13y ago
There is nothing that can't be justified under the guise of "national security" -- especially when the secret courts aren't required to show evidence or explain their secret definitions.
aet 13y ago
Did he have unreleased leaked documents?
rlpb 13y ago
The article says: "A lawyer for the police revealed during the court hearing that they were launching a criminal investigation after examining some of the material." I wonder what crime they believe that Miranda might have committed? This reminds me that it is illegal, in the UK, to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" [1]. Perhaps this case will show us how far this offence can be stretched. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_58_.E2.80.93_Collection_of_information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_58_....
- grecy 13y ago
  > "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" In a hilarious twist, they find the US Government is committing an act of terrorism by monitoring the communications of every single British citizen. </sarcasm>
- moutarde 13y ago
  > I wonder what crime they believe that Miranda might have committed? Breach of The Official Secrets Act[1]. Although I think the investigation is probably focused more on Greenwald (and The Guardian) than Miranda. [1] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/criminal-law-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression/the-official-secrets-act.html http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expres...
jacquesm 13y ago
When journalists and their associates, friends and family are threatened in the name of 'national security' we should all take note. This is a turning point in history, the first time for me when the mask has slipped for just a fraction of a moment. That this led to the story of the Guardian laptop destruction is a second piece of evidence for a machine that is spinning out of control.

49 points by UVB-76 13y ago

Note the exception -- "(...) except for the purposes of national security." In other words, this injunction isn't worth the paper it's written on...

Zikes 13y ago
Indeed. If it wasn't seized for purposes of "national security" then why was it seized at all?
hahainternet 13y ago
> In other words, this injunction isn't worth the paper it's written on... You mean in nonsense you just made up right?
- UVB-76 13y ago
  I don't see what you mean. The wording of the article has changed since I quoted it, but the meaning is the same; the material "can only be examined for national security purposes, judges say." The police seized the material precisely because it constituted a national security concern.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > I don't see what you mean. You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. > The police seized the material precisely because it constituted a national security concern. Exactly, and the injunction now prevents them from using this for any other reason.
    - UVB-76 13y ago
      > You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. They have an opinion, I have an opinion. You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. > Exactly, and the injunction now prevents them from using this for any other reason. This injunction prevents the authorities from doing what, exactly, with the seized materials? By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing?
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        > You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. > By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing? Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed.
        UVB-76 13y ago
        > I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. She is hardly going to come out and say "This ruling is a disaster; we haven't achieved anything for our client." > Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed. All the data stored on the seized devices is going to be closely scrutinised regardless, just under the guise of protecting national security. They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this.

coldcode 13y ago

If I never hear the stupid term "National Security" ever again I will be a happy camper.

joejohnson 13y ago

There is nothing that can't be justified under the guise of "national security" -- especially when the secret courts aren't required to show evidence or explain their secret definitions.

aet 13y ago

Did he have unreleased leaked documents?

rlpb 13y ago

The article says: "A lawyer for the police revealed during the court hearing that they were launching a criminal investigation after examining some of the material." I wonder what crime they believe that Miranda might have committed? This reminds me that it is illegal, in the UK, to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" [1]. Perhaps this case will show us how far this offence can be stretched. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_58_.E2.80.93_Collection_of_information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_58_....

grecy 13y ago
> "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" In a hilarious twist, they find the US Government is committing an act of terrorism by monitoring the communications of every single British citizen. </sarcasm>
moutarde 13y ago
> I wonder what crime they believe that Miranda might have committed? Breach of The Official Secrets Act[1]. Although I think the investigation is probably focused more on Greenwald (and The Guardian) than Miranda. [1] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/criminal-law-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression/the-official-secrets-act.html http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expres...

jacquesm 13y ago

When journalists and their associates, friends and family are threatened in the name of 'national security' we should all take note. This is a turning point in history, the first time for me when the mask has slipped for just a fraction of a moment. That this led to the story of the Guardian laptop destruction is a second piece of evidence for a machine that is spinning out of control.