4 ms·
> 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 ow
by 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 agoThe 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 agoA 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.