Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,348 comments
- 611,459 views
- 7,551
- London
- MattyTheDog
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
The BBC are one of the few news providers who aren't just licking the UK government's boots clean. I think that's pretty brave of them, don't you?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Yes, but they were careful to provide the official explanation for why seizing Greenwald's partner's electronics was justified under the terrorism laws.
They also rather unctuously added, that while #10 was in the know, it was really all a police matter.
Last edited:
- 14,047
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
According to this YouGov poll, UKIP supporters were most likely to support Mr Miranda's arrest, and 57% of them either support the law, and 20% of them (the national average was 12%) support the police if they were to seize the computers, tablets, laptops or phones of anyone in Britain, not just those entering/leaving the country. Lib Dems were least likely to support the arrest of Mr Miranda, and 56% believe Schedule 7 should be loosened.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
Anyway, at least the BBC actually reported on it. Considering their position one would expect them not to, considering all the British newspapers bar the Guardian have allowed themselves to succumb to the government's pressure and aren't reporting on it.
Honestly though, I'm beginning to find this frightfully Orwellian.
I actually understand what the UK and US have been doing. They have created a highly effective way of stopping terrorist attacks. However, they have done that by spying on EVERYONE without telling them. This is a little disturbing, but not especially. I personally support the release of this information into the public view, as long as it does not compromise the ability to protect the public from potential terrorist attacks.
The way, however, the UK and US have dealt with the release of this information is quite frankly sickening. They have used intimidation tactics on journalists and forced the Bolivian President's plane out of the sky.
Where is the step between detaining a journalist's boyfriend under Section 7 and detaining your political enemies? When do we find that the leader of the opposition in the United Kingdom has been detained under Section 7? It really worries me.
Honestly though, I'm beginning to find this frightfully Orwellian.
I actually understand what the UK and US have been doing. They have created a highly effective way of stopping terrorist attacks. However, they have done that by spying on EVERYONE without telling them. This is a little disturbing, but not especially. I personally support the release of this information into the public view, as long as it does not compromise the ability to protect the public from potential terrorist attacks.
The way, however, the UK and US have dealt with the release of this information is quite frankly sickening. They have used intimidation tactics on journalists and forced the Bolivian President's plane out of the sky.
Where is the step between detaining a journalist's boyfriend under Section 7 and detaining your political enemies? When do we find that the leader of the opposition in the United Kingdom has been detained under Section 7? It really worries me.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
I don't know where to begin on the Miranda situation. If he's found to be carrying sensitive information which compromises the public's safety, surely he should be prosecuted. It's not as if they stopped a random person. He was directly linked to a journalist who had involvement with secrets being revealed. He may not have known what he was carrying as there are reports that his journalist partner used him as a "mule".
Yes, we've had several whistle blowers who have revealed information which the public deserves to know about. However, if you're going to handle sensitive data in bulk (several press agencies have said that the info taken goes beyond 10,000 pages) then you have a responsibility to ensure that a) It doesn't fall in to the wrong hands and b) that you're sure that the information within it doesn't compromise the safety of military forces or the public.
We don't know what information Snowden copied and leaked. He probably doesn't know the extent of it either. I expect he copied hard disks containing all sorts of information and literally took as much as he could get.
I'm all for whistleblowing but those people doing it have a massive responsibility with the information they take.
Yes, we've had several whistle blowers who have revealed information which the public deserves to know about. However, if you're going to handle sensitive data in bulk (several press agencies have said that the info taken goes beyond 10,000 pages) then you have a responsibility to ensure that a) It doesn't fall in to the wrong hands and b) that you're sure that the information within it doesn't compromise the safety of military forces or the public.
We don't know what information Snowden copied and leaked. He probably doesn't know the extent of it either. I expect he copied hard disks containing all sorts of information and literally took as much as he could get.
I'm all for whistleblowing but those people doing it have a massive responsibility with the information they take.
Last edited:
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
It's starting to sound now like he was carrying restricted information, and this was nothing to do with supposed intimidation of a journalist.
If you're going to get caught crossing international borders with restricted data then yes you are going to be held for a long time. If it's US data shared with the UK then you'll be held for a VERY long time.
If you're going to get caught crossing international borders with restricted data then yes you are going to be held for a long time. If it's US data shared with the UK then you'll be held for a VERY long time.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578
It's not been stated it was classified information, hence my previous post clearly didn't state it as fact.
When there's possibly several gigabytes of data being held it's very difficult to form a case for detention in just 9 hours.
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
They had to release him because the law used to hold him had a time limit. They didn't have time within the 9 hours to decrypt the information from the devices taken. The courts granted extra time for the devices to be held because it was likely that information contained within was stolen.
Now that the Met have decrypted the device(s) it appears that they will be proceeding with criminal convictions.
- 27,218
- United Kingdom
- 2,833
- Lincoln
- Victory_Reign93
- Linthium Reign
- 3,460
- Hollywood
Carlos
Premium
- 6,453
- Netherlands
We will never know unless we know and what we learned the last few years wasn't really positive for them (gov). So we can't be sure it is useful for terrorist and to be honest I really do not believe such thing. If one can not be trusted it is the gov so we should be really careful what to believe.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
Judge first, facts later. I see.
- 29,309
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I agree.
Miranda and Greenwald were interviewed on Channel 4 News the other night (as sympathetic an interview as they could possibly hope for) and yet they came out with some rather bizarre stuff. Miranda said "I don't know if I was carrying classified documents" (source) which seems somewhat of an alarming confession. Greenwald is asked "...they believe that you have highly sensitive, 'stolen' information that could help terrorists and could lead to a loss of lives... is that true? Do you have information that could do that?" to which he responds, "Sure, we're adults and we understand the stakes..." before continuing on about how they made the choice to go ahead with reporting on the information in the public interest.
To me, it sounds like Miranda and Greenwald are either being deliberately obtuse or are being extremely naive, whether or not some of the information they are revealing is of significant public interest. They are right on the interface between what the public ought to know and what the government have the right to keep private in the interest of public safety, which is, after all, one of the legitimate reasons that governments exist at all.
The confession that Miranda didn't know (and "didn't question") what he was being asked to carry is revealing. The response - detaining him and taking/searching his stuff - seems like a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century problem, but I am inclined to disagree with the outraged response as highlighted in various Guardian articles this week that see this as the biggest news story ever.
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
Possibly, but I doubt all of it is and I expect there is highly sensitive information contained within. We know that governments do bad things and make bad decisions which are not in the interests of the general public. Certain things need to be exposed and we need responsible journalists to assist in revealing certain things.
The way that Miranda and co have gone about it has the potential to put people in danger and that's what I'm not happy with. This is why Snowden is a hero and a potential villain. I expect he took huge quantities of information which he has distributed with various sources around the world without a care. I'm pretty sure he could have leaked the Prism information anonymously without such a huge security breach. On the one hand he wants to expose our governments breach in privacy yet on the other hand he's willing to put the whole country's national security at risk.
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base
In response to everything.
In response to everything.
Carlos
Premium
- 6,453
- Netherlands
I still don't see how they are putting national security at risk. That's only what the gov tells us. We probably don't even need such security, it's all just a hype. Booz Allen's income is 99% gov contracts, 23% are gov intelligence contracts. Please tell me why a private company would make billions out of spying on their own people?
The gov is trying to scare us, they think they deserve to know and also think we don't deserve it. A few years ago a terrorist was something different, now they even call Miranda a terrorist. What is the bubble they want to protect?
Why does the gov spy? Do they really spend billions of Dollars to get a terrorist or do they spend billions of Dollars because they are hypocrite and don't trust us, their own people?
What we know so far, is that they spy on their own people, us, and we (the press for example) isn't allowed to report and we the people aren't even allowed or have a way to ask them questions. They know everything and we know nothing, I wouldn't call that democracy.
The gov is trying to scare us, they think they deserve to know and also think we don't deserve it. A few years ago a terrorist was something different, now they even call Miranda a terrorist. What is the bubble they want to protect?
Why does the gov spy? Do they really spend billions of Dollars to get a terrorist or do they spend billions of Dollars because they are hypocrite and don't trust us, their own people?
What we know so far, is that they spy on their own people, us, and we (the press for example) isn't allowed to report and we the people aren't even allowed or have a way to ask them questions. They know everything and we know nothing, I wouldn't call that democracy.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It would be the hardest task in humanity to pick a person/group that do us all good..
