
Detaining David Miranda - dllthomas
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/detaining_david.html
======
magikarp
Why hasn't anyone considered that David Miranda's detention could have been
orchestrated in order to radicalize Glenn Greenwald, to bring him to "full
froth", so to speak? Make him angry, make it personal by abusing his husband,
so that his reporting becomes more emotional to the point where he starts
risking his legitimacy and moral authority as a journalist. Something very
similar happened with WikiLeaks.

I know Glenn and I'm certain he's smarter than this, but this is an
explanation I've had in my head since day one and everyone seems to have
missed. And, at least for the first couple of days, Glenn certainly did appear
quite frustrated and did say he'll publish more aggressively. But isn't acting
like this playing into their hands, by giving up his legitimacy as an
impartial journalist? He must not allow them to make it a personal fight
between him and the NSA.

~~~
smutticus
Inherent in your guess at motivation is a belief that the intelligence
services don't make mistakes. But they do, they screw up all the time.

If we're going to go up against the intelligence services using civil
discourse we need to stop assuming they're infallible. They're not. They're a
vast bureaucracy of fallible people isolated by their own walls and regularly
tripped up by their own foolish office politics and bureaucratic machinations.

We should maybe start thinking of them more as the DMV and less like James
Bond.

~~~
larrys
"But they do, they screw up all the time."

A man wants to cheat on his wife. So he purposely appears to be sloppy and
gets caught at trivial things instead of appearing to be all together where he
would be watched more closely.

Am I saying they don't screw up by this statement? No. I'm saying that don't
assume that there aren't other reasons for what they do or what you know
about. The smoking gun isn't always the smoking gun at this level of
sophistication.

------
lesterbuck
>He was a sysadmin. He had access. Most of the audits and controls protect
against normal users; someone with root access is going to be able to bypass a
lot of them. And he had the technical chops to cover his tracks when he
couldn't just evade the auditing systems.

SElinux, from our friends at the NSA, was specifically built to remove the
special powers that root holds on a Linux box. Not saying you can't bypass
these things, but it's a lot more involved than "I'm root, so I'm in".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-
Enhanced_Linux](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux)

~~~
plantain
Obviously not having knowledge as to how the NSA uses it on their systems, but
out of the box and in every realworld configuration I've come across it has
little to no impact on what the root user can do.

~~~
lesterbuck
Have you ever worked on a Mandatory Access Control computer system of any
kind? They are extremely inconvenient, and thus rare to find outside
classified environments. The engineering effort to write and maintain a
functional set of SELinux policies is a large budget item. But the NSA did not
engineer and release SELinux because it doesn't work.

------
snitko
The biggest problem the public has is not knowing what to do about it. People
seem to finally grasp that voting is useless. Understandably they don't want
revolutions and violence, because they have things to lose. And because they
can't see any way out of this mess, they become apathetic.

Of course, only a little step is required: understanding that all this is done
on their own [tax] money. When the world wakes up to this truth, the first
thing it's gonna do is stop paying immediately.

~~~
unimpressive
Modern states have the ability to operate without tax money longer than you
have the ability to stay out of jail. Besides, most people keep their money in
a bank where a state can seize it without resistance. More currency can be
printed as needed.

~~~
snitko
If you jail half the population you'd have to pay for extra prisons, guards
and policemen and you're gonna have to get these money out of someone else's
pockets. Whose pockets? Modern states are certainly powerful, but not to the
extent when they can operate with half the population not paying.

Also, if you simply seize the money from the bank accounts, it's gonna be
worthless the next day, as no one will think it's worth using the currency
that can evaporate at your master's will.

~~~
unimpressive
If you have the influence to get half the population to stop paying their
taxes, you probably have easier ways of grinding society to a halt. (See:
General Strike)

------
alan_cx
I have seen a couple of examples of UK PM David Cameron commenting prematurely
on issues that he hasn't fully researched or understood, and as a result being
wholly wrong, then having to back track, and BTW, getting clean away with it.
This sort of hair trigger reaction, with out being sure of the facts, fits
with Schneier's idea of of irrational revenge thinking in the UK government.
Not enough facts, but still acts or pronounces. Its not getting it wrong that
is the issue, its the too quick to act or pronounce bit I find significant. I
thought it a dangerous sign at the times I saw it.

I have to say, I don't believe the US government had anything to do with
initiating the detaining of Miranda. I'm sure they would have been informed,
but I suspect their reaction would have probably been something like, "OK if
that is what you want to do, fine. Its your country, your laws. We are happy
to accept any thing you share as a result". I believe this was a 100% British
action, while the US offered no objections. And why should or would the US gov
object to it? So, as as far a the US gov is concerned in this specific action;
fair enough, I say.

What I think Schneier is missing is the British pathological need to be the
USA's BFF (For grown ups: Best Friends Forever). That has always been the vibe
here in the UK, but it became real when a story came out about a message
personally given to ex PM Tony Blair as he took office by the UK Ambassador to
Washington. IIRC, it came out in the Iraq war inquiry. Blair was simply told
essentially this, "With regards to the Americans, crawl as far up their
backsides as you can, and make damn sure you stay there". Yes, although that
is not a direct quote, the advice was worded in that direct coarse way.
Presumably, David Cameron clearly has had the same advice.

Looking back, it seems clear to me that we Brits have behaved thus since WW2.
And lets face it, from a rational cold UK POV, it is probably the right
advice. If you cant be the big man, have one as your best buddy. And, didn't
the UK owe the US a few dollars to rebuild after WW2? Im sure it was the case
prior to WW2, but WW2 cemented it.

On the surface, all fair enough, really. But, in extremes like the Snowden
affair or post 9/11, it seems obvious to me how this relationship can get very
out of hand, and how invisible pressure can influence people in to dangerous
areas. I suggest it happened to Blair, its now happening to Cameron.

So, I kinda agree with what Schneier is saying, but I think its more to do
with proving UK worth to the US government than pure desperate revenge. A
British sacrifice on the alter of the US government, given willingly and
freely, as a very keen junior partner.

------
coryfklein
I am very glad that people keep talking about this. I wish that I had more to
contribute to the debate and conversation that isn't just rehashing the same
discussions we've had for the past month. Something more than "Shut down the
NSA!", something that can keep the ball rolling here.

~~~
davidw
The "ball rolling here" will accomplish absolutely _nothing_. The ball has to
get out of the building where 'real people' live, where politicians are, and
so on.

~~~
kamjam
What will stop the ball rolling is if vast dossiers of information was
released about the politicians themselves, that the "security" program had
been collecting on them. As soon as dirty laundry is aired about a huge amount
of them, with the knowledge that more has yet to come they will spring into
action faster than the road runner to get this program shut down. And I'm not
talking about national security stuff, just stuff you wouldn't want everyone
else to know.

~~~
twoodfin
I don't believe such files exist, and none of Snowden's or other leaks have
left the impression that they do.

~~~
kamjam
Maybe Snowden didn't have access to them, but if they existed before the
internet revolution, then I'm sure they exist now.

I would be very surprised if they didn't, it's better to know about your dirty
laundry, than to have your "enemies" or other states air them for you.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)

------
Anderkent
Eh. Detaining David Miranda did what it was supposed to. Of course it's not
gonna scare away journalists from doing their jobs. Their idols are often
people who brought big news despite govnt opposition.

But the common man, the man that has most opportunities to blow a whistle?
They don't want to be detained at the airport, they don't have the protections
that journalists do (like, say, having close journalist friends that can get
your story out on the same day).

Arresting Miranda does not deter Greenwald, but it might deter other people
from following his act.

------
petegrif
An excellent piece.

