6 ms·

Just to be clear on this matter. The Guardian were given every option to return the classified material.[1] In two tense meetings last June and July the cabin

by ZenPro 12y ago

Just to be clear on this matter. The Guardian were given every option to return the classified material.[1] In two tense meetings last June and July the cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, explicitly warned the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, to return the Snowden documents. >> At one point Heywood said: "We can do this nicely or we can go to law" That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institution to act. They didn't send in jackbooted armed personnel to shut down the editorial department. Two computer engineers arrived and oversaw classified material being destroyed. That's it. It's about as intimidating as a police officer telling a suspect he can get in the car nicely or he can be handcuffed. The Guardian were asked point blank in a Parliamentary Hearing - "Do you think the entire episode was a PR stunt?" and they said "No." EDIT TO ADD: I love it :-) Voted down for publishing the story written by the Guardian about the entire incident. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...

declan 12y ago
ZenPro's comment is a very British way to look at government power, untethered to the limits that the U.S. Bill of Rights still imposes even in its weakened state. > Two computer engineers arrived and oversaw classified material being destroyed. That's it. Yes, but what if the Guardian had said: "Sorry, mates, we're we're not giving it to you. Cheers!" That's when the few dozen agents waiting in the vans outside armed with semiautomatic rifles come in and seize the hardware with a slightly less polite approach. Put another way, everyone who has read NSA/Snowden stories over the last 12 months -- at least the ones with leaked docs embedded -- possessed classified material. That's perhaps 10 million people in the UK alone. Should all of their hard drives be "destroyed" -- "that's it?" Just because it happens to be law doesn't mean it's right, or just, or defensible.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  [1] I never stipulated the law was defensible. Laws are weird like that though, we don't get to pick and choose which ones we feel like following that day because of how defensible we think they are. [2]You have a very US way to look at Government. UK intelligence services have no powers of arrest and carry no weapons. We certainly would not send military forces into a civilian news office so we would, in line with UK and EU legislation, ask the police to intervene once a legal mandate had been proven. The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied. No men in black with assault rifles were forthcoming. What would have happened is, the place would have been closed, a thorough audit of IT and Magnetic Media would have been conducted. Everything with anything classified on it would have been destroyed. The building reopened. The Government was doing the the Guardian a favour by saying "Look, we only want these specific info dumps. Carry on business as normal, just give us these or we go to the law and take everything." Exactly the same way a policemen might let you off with a caution if you are caught speeding and apologise. If you fight him, he impounds the car on the spot and uses the full extent of his legally provided powers. Do you honestly think two guys from GCHQ wanted to be standing in the Guardian on camera watching HDD's being grinded for hours?? The issue with cloud computing is separate and distinct from recovering a known quantity of classified information. I really am struggling to comprehend why people are failing to grasp this point. Just because X quantity of classified material exists does not mean you can ignore N quantity that can be removed from circulation. Also, you have no evidence to support that the material destroyed at the Guardian HQ had been already released in full, had been copied or transmitted to another location. You have to take each incident on it's own merits. It is what you know to be the facts at the time, not what you hope to be the facts so you can avoid being diligent.
  - prof_hobart 12y ago
    >I never stipulated the law was defensible. The problem is that your statement "That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institution to act." could easily be interpreted as you saying exactly that. What happens is that two separate questions - whether the security individuals on the ground should have carried out the law as specified, and whether that law should exist in the first place - get conflated. How I personally would expect a democratic institution to act is to not have these kinds of laws. Press freedom is a critical part of a properly functioning democracy, and I get sick of the state crying wolf with "it's threatening national security" (without, as far as I'm aware, a single instance of an actual national security issue arising from one of these stories ever being published) every time a journalist breaks a story that's embarrassing to them.
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied. Debatable, given that there are no UK laws that permit the destruction of assets not owned by the Government. The Guardian parties were not signatories to the OSA. RIPA has no stipulations on the destruction of tainted assets. More likely the threat of seizure of a wide range of equipment and extended 'investigation' by the authorities would have been sufficiently disruptive to the Guardian's conduct of business that it was quicker and easier to comply. Coercion and intimidation, in other words.
    - ZenPro 12y ago
      The assets were owned by the Government. The minute they were used to store and/or transport classified information. Exactly the same way a bank account becomes the property of the state if it is used to launder money or an item becomes the property of the state if it is seized for illegality. As per the High Court ruling. Unless you know of a different High Court?...
    - DanBC 12y ago
      A minor point about OSA: everyone is covered by it whether they've signed or not. All "signing the OSA" means is that you have read it, and you have said that you've read it.
- 7952 12y ago
  I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily. If they believed they where acting in the public interest, returning the data voluntarily would be an admission of guilt. The UK was best served by retaining the information and holding the Government to account. Naturally the Government have a resposiubility to oppose the release of sensitive information. There is an inherent unavoidable conflict. But that does not mean that either side actually acted improperly.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    On. The. Nose. +1 In all of my defence of the intelligence community I have never disparaged the Guardian. They were just doing what a free press should do, and I value a free press. The Government were just doing what a Government should do. When they went toe to toe The Guardian blinked first. When they did the whole process became mundane (in a security policy context). EDIT: Downvoted for saying I agree with free press! :-) :-) I love this platform
  - declan 12y ago
    >I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily. Because they spent 15 seconds backing up the Snowden files on an anonymous Google Drive account and knew that GCHQ's attempts to destroy the files were futile? Or because they knew that Glenn Greenwald -- writing for them at the time -- was living in another hemisphere, had a full set of the files, and wasn't about to comply? Or because they didn't want to go to prison? Pick your answer. Each is possible. Note I'm not faulting the Guardian here, just saying what some possibilities are.
andy_ppp 12y ago
Some of the down voting here is really weird right now. It's not really worthwhile commenting so I've given up. If you have anything outside of a mainstream geek view you are toast on HN. Your comment is fine and adds information, so I can't understand why it's been down voted.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- woof 12y ago
  Reminds me of slashdot and reddit, before I left years ago. Same type of gaming?
- nullc 12y ago
  Because he's aggressively making the same claims in many threads, the discussions in those threads suggest that people have found fault in his arguments (e.g. they think he's misrepresenting the law). Because of the way the threading works people are seeing his N repetitions of these claims, with rebuttals, before seeing this post, so naturally they're down-voting it.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    In response to people aggressively stating the same false allegations. 1. Miranda was denied a lawyer. >> False. He refused the lawyer after it was offered and confirmed it in his appeal and his subsequent account. 2. The Guardian accused the GCHQ of merely conducting a PR stunt. >> False. Guardian admitted it was not a PR stunt. 3. No laws exist that pertain to the destruction of magnetic media holding classified data. >> False. Too many statutes and policy papers to list *again* 4. No other countries have similar laws >> False. Posters from Australia and the USA and Commercial organisations have confirmed it is exactly the same in their countries. Posters working with List X companies have confirmed the exact same legal environment. 5. I am a shill. >> So false it is absurd. I disagreed with JTRIG, advocated free press and refuse to disparage the Guardian and wrote a lengthy article about questioning the intelligence services. I am so much of a shill I purposefully sabotaged my own shilling with a failed iAMA on Reddit and links to my own startup. 6. Intelligence Service had no right to detain Miranda >> False as per the ruling of the High Court. 7. Intelligence Service had no right to seize magnetic media containing classified information. >> False as per High Court ruling. 8. Intelligence Services were under orders. IE Nuremberg Argument. >> False. Intelligence Services are not bound by the Military Act of 2011. They are not under orders. 9. Intelligence services would have sent gunmen into the Guardian to claim their property. >> So false it is nearing Hollywood levels of nonsense. 10. I am anti-Snowden, pro-NSA >> False. Never stated my leaning either way. Merely described the circumstances that lead to hard drives being destroyed. 11. I am a liar / Walter Mitty / fantasist etc >> False. Served 8 years in military intelligence as an EW OP, Operations Analyst and then Counter Intelligence operator. Full reports and SC and NATO SC clearances with lapsed DV clearances. Regardless of accusations, I *know* my service record is genuine. 12. I have invented the law. >> False. Consider for a second the absolute ludicrous nature of this thread. Just rationally consider it. It is highly likely that only one person on the thread (me) has *ever* been responsible for the destruction of magnetic media containing compromised material of classification. I wrote about it on Quora (verified by Marc and for Urban Times (credentials verified by the Editorial Team) and I have explained why it happened. I have not defended the law or advocated it, merely explained it. And there is an entire thread of people claiming that they know better and, brilliantly, some of them are not even British. The did a cursory Google search, did not read anything and decided I was lying. The best part is a poster above actually linked to a document which word for word proved exactly what I had posted. He was using it as some sort of evidence I was lying! It was a baseline policy document directing you to the legislation of information breaches and destruction of IT... If ever there was a thread evidencing the reasons against Democracy it is this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irrational_voters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irration...

by ZenPro 12y ago

declan 12y ago

ZenPro's comment is a very British way to look at government power, untethered to the limits that the U.S. Bill of Rights still imposes even in its weakened state. > Two computer engineers arrived and oversaw classified material being destroyed. That's it. Yes, but what if the Guardian had said: "Sorry, mates, we're we're not giving it to you. Cheers!" That's when the few dozen agents waiting in the vans outside armed with semiautomatic rifles come in and seize the hardware with a slightly less polite approach. Put another way, everyone who has read NSA/Snowden stories over the last 12 months -- at least the ones with leaked docs embedded -- possessed classified material. That's perhaps 10 million people in the UK alone. Should all of their hard drives be "destroyed" -- "that's it?" Just because it happens to be law doesn't mean it's right, or just, or defensible.

ZenPro 12y ago
[1] I never stipulated the law was defensible. Laws are weird like that though, we don't get to pick and choose which ones we feel like following that day because of how defensible we think they are. [2]You have a very US way to look at Government. UK intelligence services have no powers of arrest and carry no weapons. We certainly would not send military forces into a civilian news office so we would, in line with UK and EU legislation, ask the police to intervene once a legal mandate had been proven. The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied. No men in black with assault rifles were forthcoming. What would have happened is, the place would have been closed, a thorough audit of IT and Magnetic Media would have been conducted. Everything with anything classified on it would have been destroyed. The building reopened. The Government was doing the the Guardian a favour by saying "Look, we only want these specific info dumps. Carry on business as normal, just give us these or we go to the law and take everything." Exactly the same way a policemen might let you off with a caution if you are caught speeding and apologise. If you fight him, he impounds the car on the spot and uses the full extent of his legally provided powers. Do you honestly think two guys from GCHQ wanted to be standing in the Guardian on camera watching HDD's being grinded for hours?? The issue with cloud computing is separate and distinct from recovering a known quantity of classified information. I really am struggling to comprehend why people are failing to grasp this point. Just because X quantity of classified material exists does not mean you can ignore N quantity that can be removed from circulation. Also, you have no evidence to support that the material destroyed at the Guardian HQ had been already released in full, had been copied or transmitted to another location. You have to take each incident on it's own merits. It is what you know to be the facts at the time, not what you hope to be the facts so you can avoid being diligent.
- prof_hobart 12y ago
  >I never stipulated the law was defensible. The problem is that your statement "That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institution to act." could easily be interpreted as you saying exactly that. What happens is that two separate questions - whether the security individuals on the ground should have carried out the law as specified, and whether that law should exist in the first place - get conflated. How I personally would expect a democratic institution to act is to not have these kinds of laws. Press freedom is a critical part of a properly functioning democracy, and I get sick of the state crying wolf with "it's threatening national security" (without, as far as I'm aware, a single instance of an actual national security issue arising from one of these stories ever being published) every time a journalist breaks a story that's embarrassing to them.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied. Debatable, given that there are no UK laws that permit the destruction of assets not owned by the Government. The Guardian parties were not signatories to the OSA. RIPA has no stipulations on the destruction of tainted assets. More likely the threat of seizure of a wide range of equipment and extended 'investigation' by the authorities would have been sufficiently disruptive to the Guardian's conduct of business that it was quicker and easier to comply. Coercion and intimidation, in other words.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    The assets were owned by the Government. The minute they were used to store and/or transport classified information. Exactly the same way a bank account becomes the property of the state if it is used to launder money or an item becomes the property of the state if it is seized for illegality. As per the High Court ruling. Unless you know of a different High Court?...
  - DanBC 12y ago
    A minor point about OSA: everyone is covered by it whether they've signed or not. All "signing the OSA" means is that you have read it, and you have said that you've read it.
7952 12y ago
I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily. If they believed they where acting in the public interest, returning the data voluntarily would be an admission of guilt. The UK was best served by retaining the information and holding the Government to account. Naturally the Government have a resposiubility to oppose the release of sensitive information. There is an inherent unavoidable conflict. But that does not mean that either side actually acted improperly.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  On. The. Nose. +1 In all of my defence of the intelligence community I have never disparaged the Guardian. They were just doing what a free press should do, and I value a free press. The Government were just doing what a Government should do. When they went toe to toe The Guardian blinked first. When they did the whole process became mundane (in a security policy context). EDIT: Downvoted for saying I agree with free press! :-) :-) I love this platform
- declan 12y ago
  >I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily. Because they spent 15 seconds backing up the Snowden files on an anonymous Google Drive account and knew that GCHQ's attempts to destroy the files were futile? Or because they knew that Glenn Greenwald -- writing for them at the time -- was living in another hemisphere, had a full set of the files, and wasn't about to comply? Or because they didn't want to go to prison? Pick your answer. Each is possible. Note I'm not faulting the Guardian here, just saying what some possibilities are.

andy_ppp 12y ago

Some of the down voting here is really weird right now. It's not really worthwhile commenting so I've given up. If you have anything outside of a mainstream geek view you are toast on HN. Your comment is fine and adds information, so I can't understand why it's been down voted.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
woof 12y ago
Reminds me of slashdot and reddit, before I left years ago. Same type of gaming?
nullc 12y ago
Because he's aggressively making the same claims in many threads, the discussions in those threads suggest that people have found fault in his arguments (e.g. they think he's misrepresenting the law). Because of the way the threading works people are seeing his N repetitions of these claims, with rebuttals, before seeing this post, so naturally they're down-voting it.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  In response to people aggressively stating the same false allegations. 1. Miranda was denied a lawyer. >> False. He refused the lawyer after it was offered and confirmed it in his appeal and his subsequent account. 2. The Guardian accused the GCHQ of merely conducting a PR stunt. >> False. Guardian admitted it was not a PR stunt. 3. No laws exist that pertain to the destruction of magnetic media holding classified data. >> False. Too many statutes and policy papers to list *again* 4. No other countries have similar laws >> False. Posters from Australia and the USA and Commercial organisations have confirmed it is exactly the same in their countries. Posters working with List X companies have confirmed the exact same legal environment. 5. I am a shill. >> So false it is absurd. I disagreed with JTRIG, advocated free press and refuse to disparage the Guardian and wrote a lengthy article about questioning the intelligence services. I am so much of a shill I purposefully sabotaged my own shilling with a failed iAMA on Reddit and links to my own startup. 6. Intelligence Service had no right to detain Miranda >> False as per the ruling of the High Court. 7. Intelligence Service had no right to seize magnetic media containing classified information. >> False as per High Court ruling. 8. Intelligence Services were under orders. IE Nuremberg Argument. >> False. Intelligence Services are not bound by the Military Act of 2011. They are not under orders. 9. Intelligence services would have sent gunmen into the Guardian to claim their property. >> So false it is nearing Hollywood levels of nonsense. 10. I am anti-Snowden, pro-NSA >> False. Never stated my leaning either way. Merely described the circumstances that lead to hard drives being destroyed. 11. I am a liar / Walter Mitty / fantasist etc >> False. Served 8 years in military intelligence as an EW OP, Operations Analyst and then Counter Intelligence operator. Full reports and SC and NATO SC clearances with lapsed DV clearances. Regardless of accusations, I *know* my service record is genuine. 12. I have invented the law. >> False. Consider for a second the absolute ludicrous nature of this thread. Just rationally consider it. It is highly likely that only one person on the thread (me) has *ever* been responsible for the destruction of magnetic media containing compromised material of classification. I wrote about it on Quora (verified by Marc and for Urban Times (credentials verified by the Editorial Team) and I have explained why it happened. I have not defended the law or advocated it, merely explained it. And there is an entire thread of people claiming that they know better and, brilliantly, some of them are not even British. The did a cursory Google search, did not read anything and decided I was lying. The best part is a poster above actually linked to a document which word for word proved exactly what I had posted. He was using it as some sort of evidence I was lying! It was a baseline policy document directing you to the legislation of information breaches and destruction of IT... If ever there was a thread evidencing the reasons against Democracy it is this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irrational_voters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irration...