ZenPro

15 ms·

91.
by ZenPro 12y ago
But you know full well it exists and you know full well I am right. Those lads had no option when they walked into the Guardian. It is also on Wikileaks. That was the original argument before the sub-threads and vote gaming started.
92.
by ZenPro 12y ago
I expect the storm of downvotes to arrive any time now. Don't bring rational thought to this thread rcxdude. Great TL;DR by the way. > TL;DR: if you have sensitive information (and you know it is sensitive, and have not been given
93.
by ZenPro 12y ago
I couldn't give a fuck about your bullshit reason you dick.
94.
by ZenPro 12y ago
When I was serving I always used to wonder why the Ministry of Defence never used to defend itself with a public spokesman about public allegations. Now I know why - people are morons and no explanation will suffice. It is really not worth
95.
by ZenPro 12y ago
In the Universe of legal systems. I suppose you could say that the police "intimidate" criminals by threatening to arrest them as well but it would make no more sense than you are making. Like a parent "intimidates" a
96.
by ZenPro 12y ago
I take it you have now watched the video and concede that you are wrong. I don't mean "it's open to interpretation" but I mean flat out wrong. The Guardian admitted it was not a PR stunt. I accept your concession.
97.
by 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
98.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Yes you are right. That is decidedly inconvenient to maintaining credibility on this thread but in the interests of being transparent you are right. It was early in my HN posting and it was a stupid title. Not even remotely close to the o
99.
by ZenPro 12y ago
You are right. I reacted adversely TBH. I did pull up Zigurds Facebook etc to carry it offline but I didn't think it would be constructive. Apologies to the HN audience for having a public spat :-)
100.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Excellent observation. Let's dissect it. Here is the classic problem with trial by Google - we cannot verify exactly what you have typed into Google but let us take you at face value and say you cannot find a match. It is reasonab
101.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Oh my word - your mind is in paranoid overdrive right now. 1. Never proclaimed I was a spook or a spy. Not once, anywhere. 2. If I did proclaim I was a spook and was indeed a JTRIG sockpuppet that would make me a pretty fucking terribl
102.
by ZenPro 12y ago
EDIT: The downvotes are strong on this one :-) I have only posted the transcript from the court. Are we downvoting primary sources now? I think it is important to provide the crux of the context which you have failed to do so - [18] (e)
103.
by ZenPro 12y ago
The JTRIG plans were ludicrous. I would quite happily support a Judge to reign that in. The overreach is astonishing.
104.
by 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 becom
105.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Nuremberg - really? We are already moving towards comparing the destruction of laptops with the widespread genocide of ethnic minorities and Jews? They are not following orders. They are following the law. Intelligence Services are not th
106.
by ZenPro 12y ago
You really are pushing your own version of events there aren't you? He was offered a lawyer and he refused, confirmed by him in his own appeal and gosh, not 9 whole hours - oh the horror! Schedule 7 Anti-Terrorism has been now been im
107.
by ZenPro 12y ago
...then Johnson was asked. "Was it a PR move?" to which he responded. "No. I wouldn't say that."
108.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Are you accusing the other posters who confirm similar laws in the USA and Australia of lying as well or do you concede that they exist? Shorthand for a member of the community is just 'analyst'. Spook/Spy is a pop culture re
109.
by ZenPro 12y ago
You are not wrong. I did two years of law school and my initial reaction was one of incredulity. However, I can only repeat what I have said all along; regardless of the stupidity or the flaws - it is still the law. Classified material sto
110.
by 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 shou
111.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Believe me, if I was a spy I would have more important things to worry about than bringing some reason to a debate on Hacker News. The intelligence community is staffed with literally millions of people who are not spies. TOP SECRET cleara
112.
by ZenPro 12y ago
I don't know anything about the focus on the chips in particular. I never did anything like that in my destruction and I cannot comment credibly on that part of the story. I can only comment on why the magnetic media had to be destr
113.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Apart from people like Edward Snowden of course. They signed no such agreements obviously. However, to demonstrate the breadth of your naiveté in your little witch hunt - here is the first line of that document you linked to. ensure they
114.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Oh the irony. ZenPro must be lying because he referenced publicly available legislation and discussed the rationale behind destroying Guardian magnetic media. No one involved in the Intelligence Community would do such thing. Thank God Ed
115.
by ZenPro 12y ago
That's a weird attack... [1] I posted the link to the AMA on HackerNews. Stop acting like you "uncovered" it. It's in my submissions. I also don't think a single one of my replies on that AMA counts as a Derp - if
116.
by 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 loo
117.
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
118.
by ZenPro 12y ago
I could not actually say this better. +1 EdgeRank is an extortion for businesses.
119.
by ZenPro 12y ago
Nope. There is absolutely no intimidation whatsoever and reports by the Guardian journalists confirm that the GCHQ engineers were simply resigned to an extremely common and boring task. They joked about the futility of it as I understand.
120.
by ZenPro 12y ago
You were so close with this line > GCHQ was merely observing to see that the Guardian staff were cooperating. Instructing journalists to remove their 'special storage chips' while leaving others intact would be a breach of ope

More ›