5 ms·

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

by UVB-76 13y ago

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.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > 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. I remain unconvinced. I don't see that you can infer this soley from her representation. I have seen many solicitors strongly condemn a ruling and admit a complete failure, although not in those words. > 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. I have not read the ruling, so it is impossible for me to know for certain what it prohibits. I think it's pretty unlikely that they would make a ruling that prohibited nothing without at least some mention of it by someone with knowledge.

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

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.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > 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. I remain unconvinced. I don't see that you can infer this soley from her representation. I have seen many solicitors strongly condemn a ruling and admit a complete failure, although not in those words. > 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. I have not read the ruling, so it is impossible for me to know for certain what it prohibits. I think it's pretty unlikely that they would make a ruling that prohibited nothing without at least some mention of it by someone with knowledge.