4 ms·

Edit: my reading skills suck today. Feel free to ignore/downvote this. The independent article [1] referred to has an interesting claim: >The Independent un

Edit: my reading skills suck today. Feel free to ignore/downvote this. The independent article [1] referred to has an interesting claim: >The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that could damage national security. >As well as destroying a computer containing one copy of the Snowden files, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, agreed to restrict the newspaper’s reporting of the documents. From this submission's guardian article: Greenwald: "Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents" It might be helpful if the Guardian explicitly clears this up. What a strange situation... [1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-...

grey-area 13y ago
The Guardian editors did an interview a while ago with Charlie Rose explaining the process[1], and I don't think it's so much an agreement as that they run stories past the government first, for comment, and for the government to give them specific objections to revealing information - so far they've not heard anything concrete, just 'don't publish this' - though this was before the laptop debacle. The Guardian and WaPo redact the documents before publication (sometimes heavily). The Independent is restating that in a slightly misleading way to imply that The Guardian has some sort of firm agreement with the government on vague terms like 'national security'. So I don't think the Guardian needs to clear anything up, they've been quite clear, and even if there were an agreement, I think the Guardian would argue that nothing they have or will publish does endanger 'national security' - it would come down to arguments over the meaning of that term. Does it meant the comfort and ease of our politicians and security services to keep their activities secret, or does it mean actual danger to citizens of the UK? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz... From the Independent story: The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. This looks really bad for the Independent, as the article makes it sound like this is based on a leak from Snowden, and yet Snowden has specifically denied this, and if you go back and reread the article in that light, it becomes clear that they have simply reproduced a leak at the behest of GCHQ, carefully worded in order to preempt future scoops while giving little away, and yet get in front of the news with their best possible spin. I love the ending as well where they give up pretending to be independent: Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and organised crime. We know they already collect it all, and the only limits are technical ones (for GCHQ at least, and it's starting to look like the NSA are similar). We already know they target individuals who are nothing to do with terror and organised crime (Laura Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda etc).
- dtf 13y ago
  I've seen a few suggestions that the SIGINT station is Masirah Island in Oman, which isn't exactly a secret. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&pg=PA212#v=onepage&q=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq...
  - grey-area 13y ago
    They imply in the article though that they have seen secret documents, on which the story is based.
JonnieCache 13y ago
The guardian have always been open about not publishing operational details. Those black slides in the prism ppt were redacted by the guardian, not by the NSA. Whether or not this means they "agreed to government demands" is a boring matter of semantics if they were going to do it anyway.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I'd say its the Guardian being responsible. The idea is to hold government to account, not risk people on the ground.
  - colin_jack 13y ago
    Exactly, and the fact they've continued publishing despite the DA-notice [1][2] is sign enough that they are in no way interested in rolling over. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-censor-surveillance-security http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-m... [2] http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardian-g8-spying-revelations-were-breach-da-notice-guidance-doesnt-explain-lack-follow http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardian-g8-spying-rev...
alan_cx 13y ago
As you have quoted, its the Independent who claims there are agreements in place, not the Guardian or Greenwald. So, it's the Independent who need to clarify their claim, the Guardian employee has flat out denied it. How clear does it need to be from the Guardian if a total denial is not enough? Edit: seen you edit now. Fair play to you. I've done the exact same thing in the past!!!!

grey-area 13y ago

The Guardian editors did an interview a while ago with Charlie Rose explaining the process[1], and I don't think it's so much an agreement as that they run stories past the government first, for comment, and for the government to give them specific objections to revealing information - so far they've not heard anything concrete, just 'don't publish this' - though this was before the laptop debacle. The Guardian and WaPo redact the documents before publication (sometimes heavily). The Independent is restating that in a slightly misleading way to imply that The Guardian has some sort of firm agreement with the government on vague terms like 'national security'. So I don't think the Guardian needs to clear anything up, they've been quite clear, and even if there were an agreement, I think the Guardian would argue that nothing they have or will publish does endanger 'national security' - it would come down to arguments over the meaning of that term. Does it meant the comfort and ease of our politicians and security services to keep their activities secret, or does it mean actual danger to citizens of the UK? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz... From the Independent story: The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. This looks really bad for the Independent, as the article makes it sound like this is based on a leak from Snowden, and yet Snowden has specifically denied this, and if you go back and reread the article in that light, it becomes clear that they have simply reproduced a leak at the behest of GCHQ, carefully worded in order to preempt future scoops while giving little away, and yet get in front of the news with their best possible spin. I love the ending as well where they give up pretending to be independent: Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and organised crime. We know they already collect it all, and the only limits are technical ones (for GCHQ at least, and it's starting to look like the NSA are similar). We already know they target individuals who are nothing to do with terror and organised crime (Laura Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda etc).

dtf 13y ago
I've seen a few suggestions that the SIGINT station is Masirah Island in Oman, which isn't exactly a secret. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&pg=PA212#v=onepage&q=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq...
- grey-area 13y ago
  They imply in the article though that they have seen secret documents, on which the story is based.

JonnieCache 13y ago

The guardian have always been open about not publishing operational details. Those black slides in the prism ppt were redacted by the guardian, not by the NSA. Whether or not this means they "agreed to government demands" is a boring matter of semantics if they were going to do it anyway.

alan_cx 13y ago
I'd say its the Guardian being responsible. The idea is to hold government to account, not risk people on the ground.
- colin_jack 13y ago
  Exactly, and the fact they've continued publishing despite the DA-notice [1][2] is sign enough that they are in no way interested in rolling over. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-censor-surveillance-security http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-m... [2] http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardian-g8-spying-revelations-were-breach-da-notice-guidance-doesnt-explain-lack-follow http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardian-g8-spying-rev...

alan_cx 13y ago

As you have quoted, its the Independent who claims there are agreements in place, not the Guardian or Greenwald. So, it's the Independent who need to clarify their claim, the Guardian employee has flat out denied it. How clear does it need to be from the Guardian if a total denial is not enough? Edit: seen you edit now. Fair play to you. I've done the exact same thing in the past!!!!