Interesting Links for 21-08-2013
- Divekick, the Ridiculous Joke That Became a Revolutionary Fighting Game
(tags: games ) - A blood test for suicide? US study raises controversial prospect to identify people at risk
(tags: suicide ) - Should we judge people of past eras for moral failings?
Interesting article, although it fails to note that the same applies to people in different ( Read more... )
Well, I'm going by the Guardian's own story -- it's pretty carefully framed.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london
"They argued that the material was stolen and that a newspaper had no business holding on to it. The Official Secrets Act was mentioned but not threatened. At this stage officials emphasised they preferred a low-key route rather than go to court."
"After three weeks... The same two senior officials who had visited the Guardian the previous month returned with the message that patience with the newspaper's reporting was wearing out."
"At one point the Guardian was told: 'We are giving active consideration to the legal route.'"
"once it was obvious that they would be going to law I preferred to destroy our copy rather than hand it back to them or allow the courts to freeze our reporting."
"Talks began with government officials on a procedure that might satisfy their need to ensure the material had been destroyed, but which would at the same time protect the Guardian's sources and its journalism."
And then -- hammers/tongs/computer.
It seems, at no point were there legal proceedings or a request to do so... and, in fact, it seems clear the govt did not request this.
Reply
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/20/guardian-editor-cannot-explain-why-gchq-agents-destroyed-computers-at-their-offices/
Basically, if they went to court the judge could say "Not only must you hand it back, but you can't talk about it any more." It was less of a risk to destroy it than go to court.
Reply
If the government went to court the court could rule "the Guardian may not report any more on this data"?
I guess we're to presume from the bottom of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters#comment-26171966
That the guardian is under a D-Notice about some/all of this anyway.
Reply
Malik: The @arusbridger story both shocking & surreal. But he doesn't fully explain why Gdn agreed to destroy hard drives, or how it was forced to.
Rusbridger: well, couldn't personally see how fighting govt in courts was better than being free to carry on reporting Snowden material...
Malik: Surely open and public opposition to such state interference is exactly what is needed.
Rusbridger: i think being free to report on Snowden better than sitting back & handing control over to judges
Malik: But why you think that publicly challenging such state interference amounts to 'sitting back'?
Rusbridger: because once a court freezes t material there's nothing you can do. End of reporting...
Rusbridger is saying that if they fought it (by going to court) then he risked handing control over judges and having the court freeze all of the material.
Reply
Heh.. OK, I've ACTUALLY read what you intended now... rather than reading it and thinking it's uninformative.
"because once a court freezes t material there's nothing you can do. End of reporting..."
I like the way he sounds Lancashire here.
But it's not clear why, if they wanted to do that, the court can't freeze it anyway. What does the fact that the guardian has a physical copy on their file system have to do with that? Well, I guess we would need to be legal experts to answer questions like that.
Reply
Nick Clegg's office has put out a statement:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-cleggs-office-speaks-out-on-miranda-detention-and-destruction-of-guardian-data-35823.html
in which it's clear that he was pressuring to avoid legal action while ensuring the data was destroyed. Paragraphs two and three of the quote, in case your eyes skip straight to the bottom :->
I can understand that the government didn't want to be taking a newspaper to court, and vice versa, so negotiation was the best way forward.
Reply
By destroying the data in so graphic a way the Guardian has found a way to make the data go away (in the UK) but the story stay around -- which I guess is a win for them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://www.libdemvoice.org/some-more-on-the-reasoning-behind-nick-cleggs-approval-of-the-35827.html
Reply
Reply
There appears to have been a Massive Panic, which the actual facts do not match up with.
Reply
Reply
But the basic facts were misrepresented, and when you go from "Secret Agents intimidating journalist's innocent husband" to "Secret agents recovering stolen national secrets" the story is radically different.
I _really_ wish that we'd had statements from the government/Nick Clegg/etc. rather sooner. Their lack of understanding of people's basic concerns bothers me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment