3 ms·

Like this decision? http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/

by ZenPro 12y ago

Like this decision? http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents... The Facts of the Case "He provided them with encrypted data which had been stolen from the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States. The data included UK intelligence material. Some of it formed the basis of articles in the Guardian on 6 and 7 June 2013 and on later dates. On 12 August 2013 the claimant travelled from Rio de Janeiro to Berlin in order to meet Laura Poitras. He was carrying encrypted material derived from the data obtained by Mr Snowden. He was to collect computer drives containing further such material. He was doing it in order to assist in the journalistic activity of Mr Greenwald"

andyjohnson0 12y ago
The document that you linked to is the judgement confirming the legality of Miranda's detention at Heathrow. It's not a pierce of legislation; its a judgement. It doesn't compel detention, it just confirms that it was lawful [1]. The judgement was also handled-down six months after the event, so how can you claim that it means the UK authorities had to detain Miranda at the time? [1] I've already said that I agree that his detention was valid (ie lawful).
- ZenPro 12y ago
  Detention was necessary to confirm or deny the reports that David Miranda was in possession of stolen documents pertaining to the National Security of the UK and, if found to be so, relieve those documents from his possession. Once the classified material had been confirmed, security operators were then legislatively bound to destroy or other render unusable the material in question. The legislation which required all reasonable and necessary measures are contained within the Official Secrets Act 1989, the National Security Strategy, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with detailed policy guidance promulgated to intelligence operators via HMG Information Assurance Notes (1/2 (SPF)) and, more importantly, HMG Information Assurance Note 5 and the Joint Services Publication 440 which governs counter-compromise measures. Ultimate responsibility for HMG security policy lies with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. Departments and Agencies, via their Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives, must manage their security risks within the parameters set out in the framework, as endorsed by the Official Committee on Security (SO). All HMG employees (including contractors) have a collective responsibility to ensure that government assets (information, personnel and physical) are protected in a proportionate manner from terrorist attack, and other illegal or malicious activity. The loss or compromise of such Critically Important Assets would have a severe, widespread impact on a national scale and Departments must work with the National Technical Authorities and the Cabinet Office to ensure they are afforded appropriate levels of protection. [] [] [] Points to note a. The judgement was handed down 6 months later in response to the challenge by David Miranda. There was never any doubt that Schedule 7 was applied correctly from the outset apart from by the Guardian, Greenwald and Miranda.

by ZenPro 12y ago

andyjohnson0 12y ago

The document that you linked to is the judgement confirming the legality of Miranda's detention at Heathrow. It's not a pierce of legislation; its a judgement. It doesn't compel detention, it just confirms that it was lawful [1]. The judgement was also handled-down six months after the event, so how can you claim that it means the UK authorities had to detain Miranda at the time? [1] I've already said that I agree that his detention was valid (ie lawful).

ZenPro 12y ago
Detention was necessary to confirm or deny the reports that David Miranda was in possession of stolen documents pertaining to the National Security of the UK and, if found to be so, relieve those documents from his possession. Once the classified material had been confirmed, security operators were then legislatively bound to destroy or other render unusable the material in question. The legislation which required all reasonable and necessary measures are contained within the Official Secrets Act 1989, the National Security Strategy, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with detailed policy guidance promulgated to intelligence operators via HMG Information Assurance Notes (1/2 (SPF)) and, more importantly, HMG Information Assurance Note 5 and the Joint Services Publication 440 which governs counter-compromise measures. Ultimate responsibility for HMG security policy lies with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. Departments and Agencies, via their Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives, must manage their security risks within the parameters set out in the framework, as endorsed by the Official Committee on Security (SO). All HMG employees (including contractors) have a collective responsibility to ensure that government assets (information, personnel and physical) are protected in a proportionate manner from terrorist attack, and other illegal or malicious activity. The loss or compromise of such Critically Important Assets would have a severe, widespread impact on a national scale and Departments must work with the National Technical Authorities and the Cabinet Office to ensure they are afforded appropriate levels of protection. [] [] [] Points to note a. The judgement was handed down 6 months later in response to the challenge by David Miranda. There was never any doubt that Schedule 7 was applied correctly from the outset apart from by the Guardian, Greenwald and Miranda.