
Britain targets Guardian paper over intelligence leaks related to Edward Snowden - RougeFemme
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-targets-guardian-newspaper-over-intelligence-leaks-related-to-edward-snowden/2013/11/29/1ec3d9c0-581e-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html?hpid=z4
======
AlisdairO
As a citizen of the UK, the government's reaction to the Snowden revelations
chills my soul. I imagined they would at least be embarrassed to be shown to
be presiding over the construction of a turn-key despotic state.

I don't have massively high expectations of Cameron, but the fact that Clegg's
Lib Dems haven't broken up the government over this has completely destroyed
my respect for them - and any chance of me voting for them in future.

~~~
hahainternet
What exactly should they have broken the government up over? How would that
have helped in any way?

~~~
AlisdairO
It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to
meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our
main two parties. It would have shown that they were willing to fight for the
principles of their voter base. It would have given those who care about civil
liberties a power base to work with and rally behind. Symbols matter.

To be clear, my view is not that bulk surveillance trends are something that
needs a little adjustment, that one might work within the system to adjust
appropriately. I see them as a wholesale betrayal of our society, and the idea
that I voted for people who won't take a strong stand against this repels me.

~~~
hahainternet
> It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to
> meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our
> main two parties

Who are you even talking about here? You can't stand up against
authoritarianism by collapsing the government especially when you are a
minority partner with no clear better option available.

~~~
AlisdairO
...why not? I would imagine that collapsing the government would be a very
effective way to communicate that you will not compromise on your most
fundamental principles. Why is being in government but complicit in betraying
your country better than being out of government?

A party's goal is not (or at least, should not be) to be in government at any
cost. It should be to represent an ideology maintained by their voters. If
staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point of
being in government?

Presumably, your answer would be to exert power on other issues, and under
normal circumstances I would agree wholeheartedly. I was initially in favour
of the lib-con alliance, because I understand that under normal circumstances,
compromise is healthy and necessary - believe it or not, I'm generally a
political pragmatist. I just don't see this as an issue that someone could
possibly consider compromising on.

~~~
hahainternet
> If staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point
> of being in government?

Changing things. Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're
acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more
preferential party who would reign in the excesses.

In reality there exists no such party, no such majority. Who would step in to
carry out these actions you desire?

~~~
AlisdairO
> Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by
> collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential
> party who would reign in the excesses.

I think you don't understand me at all, to be honest. I don't expect a change
in the parties in charge to reign in the excesses - why would it? Both the
major parties are full of authoritarians.

What I think it _might_ provide is what we don't have in the current situation
- a basis for future change. A party that actually stands up for what's right
provides a cause for effective protest to coalesce around - as things stand,
who does a concerned citizen vote and work for, when no party supports change
of substance? You're hardly going to spur on a popular movement with promises
of working within the existing government to change the situation from
horrifying to very slightly less horrifying.

I do believe there's enough concern over these issues for a talented
politician to work with and build on. After all, despite their recent actions,
both the lib dems and the cons were elected on a popular mandate to improve
civil liberties from the dark days of labour.

------
salient
I can't believe they actually went through with it. I thought they were just
bluffing to scare them. David Cameron must believe he has _absolute power_ to
do anything he wants, including destroying any freedom the UK press may have,
along with charging journalists for terrorism, and that nobody can do anything
to stop him.

You'd think mature democracies in the 21st century would've learned something
from the previous century, and wouldn't go back to the previous _shameless_
abuses of power by the leadership, that would normally happen only in
countries we'd call "dictatorships" or "communists" or "fascists".

It's like the Internet has made them power mad once again, wiping out any
memories of previous abuses and why they happened. I think it was Bruce
Schenier who said the Internet is "magnifying" _everyone 's_ power, not just
the power of the individuals. It's just that it took a while for the
governments to catch-up to understanding how they can (ab)use this power.

We need that "secure by default" Internet right about now, to put governments
on equal footing with their citizens once again (so they can't abuse the power
to know everything about everyone anymore). We need to have real privacy again
on the Internet, and real anonymity, too, for those that think they need it.
If privacy really is dead from now on, then this century is going to not be a
very pleasant one for normal citizens.

------
vidarh
Hyperbole. Notice how lackluster their "targeting" of the Guardian has been:

The editor has been asked to appear before parliament. He'll be asked some
questions. Which may also give him another opportunity complain about the
harddrive destruction incident. Parliament regularly summons people, but the
worst they will _do_ to these people is ask them awkward questions and make
stupid statements.

The destruction of harddrives was downright farcical and distasteful, but of
relatively low importance: The Guardian were not forced to.

They were given hints that it might be bad not to destroy the drives. Even
after pointing out that of course they had copies, and being given plenty of
time to make further copies should they need to. So they decided to go along
with it.

There were no thugs forcing their ways into their offices, nor any court
orders forcing them to comply. They let some humourless GCHQ people into their
offices voluntarily, and destroyed some harddrives everyone involved knew had
been copied, and so everyone involved knew they were going through motions
because the government officials had no powers to do more, but presumably had
orders.

Cameron and ministers have complained loudly, but despite that they've so been
totally impotent when it comes to actually _do_ anoything more than
inconveniencing Miranda at Heathrow for a few hours and arranging a voluntary
ceremonial harddrive destruction that just made them look stupid.

I'm not saying it's not bad. I find it shocking and disgusting to see how
politicians have responded to this. Cameron time and time again makes it clear
that he has no respect for the public.

But if anything, it has also demonstrated that the UK government appears to
only be able to respond to the publication of classified material in a way
that is more perplexing and comical, in a way worthy of a Monthy Python
sketch, than scary and intimidating.

I almost wish I had secret documents I could publish, so I too could get to
experience first hand having GCHQ come to watch me pointlessly smash a
harddrive (smashing a harddrive properly without powertools is _hard work_ \-
I recently had to dispose of a bunch of drives at work...)

~~~
atmosx
I guess keeping a guy on the airport for no apparent reason for 7 hours, just
to make his life miserable in any way, is something that should be expected by
a _modern democracy_ who is applying filter to _protect_ it's population from
child _pornography_.

So, let's not be hyperbolic here. Well, if we were hyperbolic in the first
place, maybe the GQHC (or whatever it is called) and the NSA wouldn't have
bugged the entire planet. Who knows?

SERIOUSLY?

~~~
vidarh
All in all, it is peanuts, and still puts the UK amongst the safest countries
in the world (certainly still far better than the US when it comes to people
being detained and having stuff confiscated at airports) for people opposed to
the current government.

The point is the article tried to paint this as if the Guardian was under
imminent threat, when the government has been _whining_ for months, and that
is the worst they've been able to actually _do_.

~~~
DanBC
> still puts the UK amongst the safest countries in the world

This is true. I hope no one is suggesting that UK authorities kill
journalists.

But still, detaining the partner of a journalist who is carrying materials to
that journalist is something that the UK must not do. Respect for journalistic
materials is written into some UK law.

This kind of thing might be, compared to other countries, not that big a deal.
But it's still scummy and sleazy.

------
gaius
Ironically, the Guardian is the paper most in favour of government regulation
of the press, in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

[http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/20/despite-its-battle-with-
th...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/20/despite-its-battle-with-the-
surveillance)

~~~
seiji
People say "phone hacking," but weren't they just using default from-the-
factory four digit PINs on voicemails that the owners never thought to change?

~~~
darkr
In majority of cases yes, but there were also several instances of basic
social engineering to obtain pin resets. That was about the only thing
remotely approaching 'a hack'.

Mulcaire was no Mitnick, that's for sure.

------
tehwalrus
The Graun really has done nothing but expose law breaking by GCHQ here (Data
protection act, knowingly accepting illegally obtained data from the US). It's
astonishing that the Police are investigating them instead of the spooks.

~~~
mercurial
Is is so astonishing to find out that the various security services and the
government are in bed with each other? On the other hand, you'd expect some
MPs to raise a stink about it.

~~~
tehwalrus
The Police and the Security Services are separate organisations, and the
former are supposed to be able to investigate _anyone_ , even themselves.

I'd hoped they'd be more anxious to appear to be doing the right thing here,
but it seems Cameron's comments have emboldened them.

------
GunlogAlm
_" [Britain] also has no enshrined constitutional right to free speech"_

Well, we do, technically. We have no written constitution; our "constitution"
is statute, legal rulings, and treaties. The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees
freedom of speech.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
_" The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of speech."_

Guarantees so weak, they lay out at least seven censorship categories under
which the Guardian could be anti-freedom-of-speech'd:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

 _" The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights
of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary."_

There's so little freedom-guaranteeing here, I'm having a hard time imagining
a censorship law that this conventional actually disallows. I can't
immediately think of a reason anyone would censor, that's not covered under
one of the "necessary in a democratic society" reasons; or think of any
historic example of odious censorship that can't be reasonably described as,
e.g. "protection of... morals". I'm not sure what the purpose of this
declaration of non-rights is, beyond making a show of pretending to have them.

~~~
csmuk
Actually we can say what we like when we like and to whom we like.

The only thing is there may be a consequence of doing so.

The inner workings of the human rights act pretty much does nothing to prevent
any consequences but it doesn't stop you speaking and neither can any law. It
might stop you speaking the second time but rarely the first. The internet is
a big enabler of speaking to lots of people before you have a chance to be
censored.

The Guardian is using that fact to drum up embarrassment and wailing the terms
according to those who wish to prevent them from speaking whilst ignoring
them.

The government are trying to stop them speaking again and trying to prevent
people from speaking before they know they want to speak.

we're sitting here echoing the first words again and again.

Ultimately we don't live by any laws. The law only issues consequences. The
law is powerless here and the Guardian know it.

------
jlgaddis
Printable/single page version:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-
targets-g...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-targets-
guardian-newspaper-over-intelligence-leaks-related-to-edward-
snowden/2013/11/29/1ec3d9c0-581e-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_print.html)

------
pasbesoin
The Guardian will need resources. I suggest considering taking a subscription
-- electronic, if you are not in the UK and/or like trees.

TANSTAAFL

------
timbro
Reintroduction of fascism: My money's on the brits.

~~~
DanBC
There's lots of really lousy things happening in the UK. It doesn't seem to
matter which party is in government - some of the stuff New Labour was doing
was breath-takingly awful.

Having said that: This YouTube clip of Will Ferrel is just disturbing. How
many of the audience get the irony? How many are oblivious to it?
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzkMoEGDGE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzkMoEGDGE)

~~~
knapp
That Ferrel clip is no more or less disturbing than any featuring Al Murray
doing The Pub Landlord. How many of his audience get that it's all an ironic
joke?

~~~
DanBC
True. Alf Garnet is another example of very uncomfortable viewing.

