5 ms·

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

102 points by phelmig 13y ago

lucb1e 13y ago
Since it's probably going to be changed soon, original submission's title: The UK just equated journalism and terrorism...
- phelmig 13y ago
  Should I change the title? I don't see how it violates any rules? It's not click-baiting either. Unfortunately it's quite a summary of what the article says ...
  - aray 13y ago
    UK was asserting that Miranda was involved in espionage and terrorism, but you're asserting that it was journalism (carrying documents on behalf of Greenwald) and I don't think that's really accurate.
    - lucb1e 13y ago
      Actually the title is what Miranda says in the article about two thirds down.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I think that is actually a Greenwald quote: 'In an email to Reuters, Greenwald condemned the British government for labeling his partner's actions "terrorism." "For all the lecturing it doles out to the world about press freedoms, the UK offers virtually none...They are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism," he said.'
    - phelmig 13y ago
      Well he was carrying documents meant for a journalist, that where to be published by a legit newspapers. Sounds like being a part in a journalistic process to me. Sure the title maybe a bit edgy, but that it what it comes down to. That is the important (and very bad) message.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in the disclosure, or threat of disclosure...". That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything? They really did equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while editorialized, is not an exaggeration.
        DanBC 13y ago
        For some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document was read out, right? Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article) Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc) But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is an exaggeration. EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Pretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.
  - lucb1e 13y ago
    The hackernews mods often change titles when they differ from the title of the page that it links to. I cited yours because I think it's good.
    - phelmig 13y ago
      Thanks :-)
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Yes, you should use the original title. See "Why We Revert to Original Titles" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466) The guidelines ask you to use the original title apart from some narrow exceptions, which this submission doesn't meet. (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) > Otherwise please use the original title Your modified title is misleading and is link-baity.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
rb2e 13y ago
This kind of response is not new sadly. On Netflix, there is a documentary on Daniel Elisberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers [1] - The Most Dangerous Man in America [2]. If you watch it and you'll see some of the parallels to today with the responses between the State and Journalism. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/
- phelmig 13y ago
  There is an interesting comment [1] from Ellsberg on Snowden as well: [1]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427...
sologoub 13y ago
I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited in the article.) By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause". Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is on. This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against-greenpeace-activists-not-dropped/5065792 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against.... Effectively, "it's piracy because we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document.
- phelmig 13y ago
  Yes, this had me as well. I think Orwell is spinning in his grave right now. When everything that is meant to change status quo becomes terrorism we will live in a terrible world.
  - interstitial 13y ago
    Orwell has been spinning at the relativistic limit for some time now. He can't spin any faster.
- treeface 13y ago
  The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives." Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.
  - ytadesse 13y ago
    ... Uh, defense industry lobbyists ...
  - 13y ago
jevinskie 13y ago
How do they know that his storage media contains 58,000 documents. Were the files not transferred in an encrypted archive?

102 points by phelmig 13y ago

Since it's probably going to be changed soon, original submission's title: The UK just equated journalism and terrorism...

phelmig 13y ago
Should I change the title? I don't see how it violates any rules? It's not click-baiting either. Unfortunately it's quite a summary of what the article says ...
- aray 13y ago
  UK was asserting that Miranda was involved in espionage and terrorism, but you're asserting that it was journalism (carrying documents on behalf of Greenwald) and I don't think that's really accurate.
  - lucb1e 13y ago
    Actually the title is what Miranda says in the article about two thirds down.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I think that is actually a Greenwald quote: 'In an email to Reuters, Greenwald condemned the British government for labeling his partner's actions "terrorism." "For all the lecturing it doles out to the world about press freedoms, the UK offers virtually none...They are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism," he said.'
  - phelmig 13y ago
    Well he was carrying documents meant for a journalist, that where to be published by a legit newspapers. Sounds like being a part in a journalistic process to me. Sure the title maybe a bit edgy, but that it what it comes down to. That is the important (and very bad) message.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in the disclosure, or threat of disclosure...". That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything? They really did equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while editorialized, is not an exaggeration.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        For some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document was read out, right? Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article) Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc) But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is an exaggeration. EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Pretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.
- lucb1e 13y ago
  The hackernews mods often change titles when they differ from the title of the page that it links to. I cited yours because I think it's good.
  - phelmig 13y ago
    Thanks :-)
- DanBC 13y ago
  Yes, you should use the original title. See "Why We Revert to Original Titles" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466) The guidelines ask you to use the original title apart from some narrow exceptions, which this submission doesn't meet. (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) > Otherwise please use the original title Your modified title is misleading and is link-baity.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

rb2e 13y ago

This kind of response is not new sadly. On Netflix, there is a documentary on Daniel Elisberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers [1] - The Most Dangerous Man in America [2]. If you watch it and you'll see some of the parallels to today with the responses between the State and Journalism. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/

phelmig 13y ago
There is an interesting comment [1] from Ellsberg on Snowden as well: [1]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427...

sologoub 13y ago

I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited in the article.) By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause". Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is on. This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against-greenpeace-activists-not-dropped/5065792 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against.... Effectively, "it's piracy because we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document.

phelmig 13y ago
Yes, this had me as well. I think Orwell is spinning in his grave right now. When everything that is meant to change status quo becomes terrorism we will live in a terrible world.
- interstitial 13y ago
  Orwell has been spinning at the relativistic limit for some time now. He can't spin any faster.
treeface 13y ago
The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives." Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.
- ytadesse 13y ago
  ... Uh, defense industry lobbyists ...
- 13y ago

jevinskie 13y ago

How do they know that his storage media contains 58,000 documents. Were the files not transferred in an encrypted archive?