5 ms·

My father, an East German now living in the UK, was saying the other day that he sees parallels between the rise of the Stasi in the 1950's onwards and the UK g

by d0 13y ago

My father, an East German now living in the UK, was saying the other day that he sees parallels between the rise of the Stasi in the 1950's onwards and the UK government's behaviour over the last two decades. I'm inclined to believe him. The legal system was pretty much the first thing to fall there as well as the criminalisation of literally everything. We have so much legislation now that deals with criminalising people that people don't have a chance if they get in trouble even for something trivial.

cmdkeen 13y ago
There's a difference between "seeing parallels" and the UK being anywhere close to East Germany. Miranda was carrying classified files relating to UK intelligence gathering out of the country. You would have been stopped at the border for that at any point in the last 100 years. Almost any country in the world would do that. I would question how many would then have a court system of the calibre of England and Wales' to allow the individual to appeal against it. The courts have repeatedly struck down bits of government anti-terror legislation, S44 being the most notorious.
- antr 13y ago
  I don't think he/she is referring to Miranda, but GCHQ's arbitrary espionage on citizens, interception of communications, etc., borderline legal, if not illegal. Although the Miranda detention is the story here, the real story is the NSA/GCHQ massive surveillance revelation.
- d0 13y ago
  For the moment... Agree with your middle point however there are other laws in which he could have been stopped under which relate directly to the crime. Terrorism laws were picked selectively because they can hold suspects longer. This is the problem - everything looks like a target when a gun is handed to powerful people. This power was no accident either. The courts are inconsistent in general. There is no law of the land any more -- it's down to the prosecutor's opinion unless it is trial by Jury. Consider the post-riot sentencing system that appeared to process suspects overnight without a fair trial. Many people were issued criminal charges and a prison term for civil issues that would have usually resulted in a fine or community service.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  "Miranda was carrying classified files relating to UK intelligence gathering out of the country." He was carrying them on a flight between Berlin and Rio de Janeiro, and was detained while in transit at Heathrow. Your comment that he was taking files "out of the country", while barely technically correct, is highly misleading. He didn't steal them in the UK and try to smuggle them out of the country; the files already existed outside the UK. In fact, they were stolen from an NSA site in the US by Edward Snowden.
  - Ntrails 13y ago
    I'm not sure that is a material change in circumstance. If it was actual terrorist materials that he was carrying, or drugs/whatever, the relevant UK law would have applied in the same way. You are attempting to board a plane in the UK, and the same tests apply to a simple change of flight as they do to passenger flying from the UK. Out of interest, if he had in fact stolen them from the UK (in the same way Snowdon did) would you object to his being stopped? What if it were Snowdon himself on his way to Russia? I think the only argument I can see is that after the leak the documents should have been declassified? Since they were in the public domain. Sort of. I can't get a copy of them though so I don't see that being totally applicable.
    - andyjohnson0 13y ago
      I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment, not disputing the legal basis under which Miranda was detained. But since you asked... "You are attempting to board a plane in the UK, and the same tests apply to a simple change of flight as they do to passenger flying from the UK." Agreed. Transit passengers are subject to UK law. An important issue, though, is whether Miranda had actually committed any offence in UK law. Since he was ultimately released, it seems reasonable to assume that the police felt they couldn't establish that he had. Nevertheless, the judges in the present case found that the detention was a lawful means for the police to try to determine whether an offence had been committed. This seems reasonable to me, even though I'm sympathetic towards what Snowden/Greenwald/Miranda/Poitras have done to date. "Out of interest, if he had in fact stolen them from the UK (in the same way Snowdon did) would you object to his being stopped? What if it were Snowdon himself on his way to Russia?" First question: No, I wouldn't object. He could have committed a crime, even though I might argue that it was in the public interest. Second question: Depends on whether a crime had been committed by Snowden in the UK (unlikely, imo), or whether the UK had accepted a US warrant for his arrest (which they almost certainly would). Declassifying the documents just because they had been leaked would be absurd.
- belorn 13y ago
  Since when has the UK started to classify files of other intelligent services? Beyond being a bit bureaucratic to classify files of other nations, but what does it mean if Sweden classify files created and kept the Norway government. Can it be used to jail Norwegian citizens if they travel to or from Sweden?
  - d0 13y ago
    Actually they do that. Don't forget that GCHQ steal a lot of stuff as well and then retrospectively classify it as well.
  - gadders 13y ago
    If you read the actual court judgement (which I would recommend everyone to do, normally very interesting and shows the depth to which these things are considered) you will see: Mr Oliver Robbins, Deputy National Security Adviser for Intelligence, Security and Resilience in the Cabinet Office, indicates in his first witness statement (paragraph 6) that the encrypted data contained in the external hard drive taken from the claimant contains approximately 58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents. Many are classified SECRET or TOP SECRET. Mr Robbins states that release or compromise of such data would be likely to cause very great damage to security interests and possible loss of life.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Is that to be believed, in light of lack of evidence so far?
      - gadders 13y ago
        What evidence could they provide of this that would satisfy people?
        Zigurd 13y ago
        At this point, anything more than completely nothing, nil, nada, would be an improvement. Whereas there is a parade of unsupported statements by state security officials that have been revealed, within a week or two, to have been a lie. The fact that the burden of proof seems to be heavy is not for no reason.
- watwut 13y ago
  The point of "seeing parallels" is that it seems to be moving in that direction with no stopping barrier in sight. Neither UK nor USA nor Europe are currently oppressive dictatorships. However, dissent is already punished without much appeal or protection available to those punished. Laura Poitras, Jacob Appelbaum as first who come into mind in this mind context. Powerful anti-terrorist measures are appropriate against guy with bomb in backpack planning to kill thousands people tomorrow. They are not appropriate against occupy members essentially guilty of sitting on a side walk. Similarly, strong anti hacking measures are appropriate for those who just store millions. They are not appropriate against journalists who humiliated powerful companies. Twisting non-infractions of political opponents into "terrorist acts" is what is happening here. That is essentially little suppression apparatus being build and used, just not being powerful enough yet. The more of it is build, the harder it is to stop next growth.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    This is the problem. The letter of the law actually allows laws designed to stop actual terrorism to be used against those undertaking activities that those in power deem undesirable. Correct me if I am wrong, but almost every country has some set of laws designed to stop journalists from publishing truly dangerous information. Had Britain used those laws to detain Miranda, there would have been outcry, but the question in court would have dealt with something reasonably within the scope of the spirit of the law. Applying anti-terrorism laws to a journalist just screams of press suppression. If I were an investigative journalist in the UK, I'd be spending all my time learning about encryption, privacy software, and how to move my files to secure, overseas locations with multiple backups and fail-safes.
- whyme 13y ago
  "You would have been stopped at the border for that at any point in the last 100 years." Comparing an action that occurs in our world today to a same action occurring 100 years ago does not invalidate the parallel being drawn because you are not accounting for the world being completely different. As I see it, the technology advancements over that 100 year period have created a world that's much more sensitive to any encroachment in freedoms. So that same action can and, I believe, does align well to establish the parallel being drawn.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >There's a difference between "seeing parallels" and the UK being anywhere close to East Germany. Give it time.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
I agree that there are parallels. I also think, that even when the Stasi was (still) worse than that what is done by the US and the UK ... a start is made and the so often proclaimed "Freedom" of the western nations is undermined more and more. There was also a news that according to a worldwide Liberty organization, the US is now ranking below Romania as much as I remember when it comes to freedom of the press.
theknown99 13y ago
Trivial? He was carrying stolen state secrets. He was inconvenienced for a few hours. Lets not go overboard here!

by d0 13y ago

cmdkeen 13y ago

There's a difference between "seeing parallels" and the UK being anywhere close to East Germany. Miranda was carrying classified files relating to UK intelligence gathering out of the country. You would have been stopped at the border for that at any point in the last 100 years. Almost any country in the world would do that. I would question how many would then have a court system of the calibre of England and Wales' to allow the individual to appeal against it. The courts have repeatedly struck down bits of government anti-terror legislation, S44 being the most notorious.

antr 13y ago
I don't think he/she is referring to Miranda, but GCHQ's arbitrary espionage on citizens, interception of communications, etc., borderline legal, if not illegal. Although the Miranda detention is the story here, the real story is the NSA/GCHQ massive surveillance revelation.
d0 13y ago
For the moment... Agree with your middle point however there are other laws in which he could have been stopped under which relate directly to the crime. Terrorism laws were picked selectively because they can hold suspects longer. This is the problem - everything looks like a target when a gun is handed to powerful people. This power was no accident either. The courts are inconsistent in general. There is no law of the land any more -- it's down to the prosecutor's opinion unless it is trial by Jury. Consider the post-riot sentencing system that appeared to process suspects overnight without a fair trial. Many people were issued criminal charges and a prison term for civil issues that would have usually resulted in a fine or community service.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
"Miranda was carrying classified files relating to UK intelligence gathering out of the country." He was carrying them on a flight between Berlin and Rio de Janeiro, and was detained while in transit at Heathrow. Your comment that he was taking files "out of the country", while barely technically correct, is highly misleading. He didn't steal them in the UK and try to smuggle them out of the country; the files already existed outside the UK. In fact, they were stolen from an NSA site in the US by Edward Snowden.
- Ntrails 13y ago
  I'm not sure that is a material change in circumstance. If it was actual terrorist materials that he was carrying, or drugs/whatever, the relevant UK law would have applied in the same way. You are attempting to board a plane in the UK, and the same tests apply to a simple change of flight as they do to passenger flying from the UK. Out of interest, if he had in fact stolen them from the UK (in the same way Snowdon did) would you object to his being stopped? What if it were Snowdon himself on his way to Russia? I think the only argument I can see is that after the leak the documents should have been declassified? Since they were in the public domain. Sort of. I can't get a copy of them though so I don't see that being totally applicable.
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment, not disputing the legal basis under which Miranda was detained. But since you asked... "You are attempting to board a plane in the UK, and the same tests apply to a simple change of flight as they do to passenger flying from the UK." Agreed. Transit passengers are subject to UK law. An important issue, though, is whether Miranda had actually committed any offence in UK law. Since he was ultimately released, it seems reasonable to assume that the police felt they couldn't establish that he had. Nevertheless, the judges in the present case found that the detention was a lawful means for the police to try to determine whether an offence had been committed. This seems reasonable to me, even though I'm sympathetic towards what Snowden/Greenwald/Miranda/Poitras have done to date. "Out of interest, if he had in fact stolen them from the UK (in the same way Snowdon did) would you object to his being stopped? What if it were Snowdon himself on his way to Russia?" First question: No, I wouldn't object. He could have committed a crime, even though I might argue that it was in the public interest. Second question: Depends on whether a crime had been committed by Snowden in the UK (unlikely, imo), or whether the UK had accepted a US warrant for his arrest (which they almost certainly would). Declassifying the documents just because they had been leaked would be absurd.
belorn 13y ago
Since when has the UK started to classify files of other intelligent services? Beyond being a bit bureaucratic to classify files of other nations, but what does it mean if Sweden classify files created and kept the Norway government. Can it be used to jail Norwegian citizens if they travel to or from Sweden?
- d0 13y ago
  Actually they do that. Don't forget that GCHQ steal a lot of stuff as well and then retrospectively classify it as well.
- gadders 13y ago
  If you read the actual court judgement (which I would recommend everyone to do, normally very interesting and shows the depth to which these things are considered) you will see: Mr Oliver Robbins, Deputy National Security Adviser for Intelligence, Security and Resilience in the Cabinet Office, indicates in his first witness statement (paragraph 6) that the encrypted data contained in the external hard drive taken from the claimant contains approximately 58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents. Many are classified SECRET or TOP SECRET. Mr Robbins states that release or compromise of such data would be likely to cause very great damage to security interests and possible loss of life.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Is that to be believed, in light of lack of evidence so far?
    - gadders 13y ago
      What evidence could they provide of this that would satisfy people?
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        At this point, anything more than completely nothing, nil, nada, would be an improvement. Whereas there is a parade of unsupported statements by state security officials that have been revealed, within a week or two, to have been a lie. The fact that the burden of proof seems to be heavy is not for no reason.
watwut 13y ago
The point of "seeing parallels" is that it seems to be moving in that direction with no stopping barrier in sight. Neither UK nor USA nor Europe are currently oppressive dictatorships. However, dissent is already punished without much appeal or protection available to those punished. Laura Poitras, Jacob Appelbaum as first who come into mind in this mind context. Powerful anti-terrorist measures are appropriate against guy with bomb in backpack planning to kill thousands people tomorrow. They are not appropriate against occupy members essentially guilty of sitting on a side walk. Similarly, strong anti hacking measures are appropriate for those who just store millions. They are not appropriate against journalists who humiliated powerful companies. Twisting non-infractions of political opponents into "terrorist acts" is what is happening here. That is essentially little suppression apparatus being build and used, just not being powerful enough yet. The more of it is build, the harder it is to stop next growth.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  This is the problem. The letter of the law actually allows laws designed to stop actual terrorism to be used against those undertaking activities that those in power deem undesirable. Correct me if I am wrong, but almost every country has some set of laws designed to stop journalists from publishing truly dangerous information. Had Britain used those laws to detain Miranda, there would have been outcry, but the question in court would have dealt with something reasonably within the scope of the spirit of the law. Applying anti-terrorism laws to a journalist just screams of press suppression. If I were an investigative journalist in the UK, I'd be spending all my time learning about encryption, privacy software, and how to move my files to secure, overseas locations with multiple backups and fail-safes.
whyme 13y ago
"You would have been stopped at the border for that at any point in the last 100 years." Comparing an action that occurs in our world today to a same action occurring 100 years ago does not invalidate the parallel being drawn because you are not accounting for the world being completely different. As I see it, the technology advancements over that 100 year period have created a world that's much more sensitive to any encroachment in freedoms. So that same action can and, I believe, does align well to establish the parallel being drawn.
coldtea 13y ago
>There's a difference between "seeing parallels" and the UK being anywhere close to East Germany. Give it time.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

I agree that there are parallels. I also think, that even when the Stasi was (still) worse than that what is done by the US and the UK ... a start is made and the so often proclaimed "Freedom" of the western nations is undermined more and more. There was also a news that according to a worldwide Liberty organization, the US is now ranking below Romania as much as I remember when it comes to freedom of the press.

theknown99 13y ago

Trivial? He was carrying stolen state secrets. He was inconvenienced for a few hours. Lets not go overboard here!