Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

As I understand it, the Guardian had previously always considered D-notice requests and had usually acquiesced. However, it decided that Snowden was so important that it took the pretty unprecedented step of ignoring them.

This made the intelligence services particularly dischuffed.

Post-Snowden the status-quo was re-established.

It remains to be seen whether the Guardian would ignore D-notices again, if something else of the magnitude of Snowden came along - I hope it would use its judgement and do so, if necessary. I'm not necessarily against newspapers considering requests from the intelligence service not to publish something for good reason - it can end up with people dying. It's a tough decision an editor has to make.






The "people could die" argument is very weak and I would assume it to always be a self-serving assertion by government or the intelligence community.

If this situation would not be the responsibility of agencies breaking the law in the first place, it is no excuse for the state to break fundamental rights of citizens.

Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility.

There were no repercussions for the agencies to employ mass surveillance. This is a danger that is magnitudes greater than leaks being dangerous for spies, who know about the dangers of their profession.


Not all classified information a newspaper gets its hands on reveals illegal activity.

>Didn't happen from the leaks that did show executive overreach and abuse, so it would always make sense to make this protective claim and therefore it looses any credibility.

It doesn't need to have credibility if it's obviously true. If the Guardian has information on things such as sensitive military information or CIA operative locations and identities, revealing it could obviously result in loss of life and may not directly involve private US citizens in any capacity.

The idea that the pre-existing dangers of a profession are a justification to put people's lives in danger is just so ridiculous. If you put a bullet in the head of an enlisted man, just because he knew signing up his life might be at risk one day doesn't absolve you of being responsible for their death.


There's also zero public interest in publishing that type of operational secrets so it's very unlikely for them to be published on purpose, making it not-a-problem really.

All a news org should have to do is give the spooks advance notice about what you're about to publish. Then it's on them to extract anyone who they deem to be at risk.

>The "people could die" argument is very weak and I would assume it to always be a self-serving assertion by government or the intelligence community.

until of course it is the government itself who discloses the sensitive info - in such cases even that weak argument is just thrown out the window like in the cases of Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame or Trump/Oleg Smolenkov.


I can't say justice has been served with regards to the Valerie Plame case. G.W. Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence, and D. Trump pardoned Libby.

Ignoring a D notice seems to get the system renamed, but brought back almost identically each time. Each time they've been renamed, there's been an "incident". :)

Or just never ask authorities of the possible conflict with national security in the first place, and just publish unasked. Obviously that's not always possible, but what happened for the first Snowden story. The rest had to go through D notice as everyone now knew they were there...

Edit: Here's a Guardian piece on D notices and renaming, confirming the first Snowden story simply side-stepped them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/31/d-notice-syste...

Fascinating to see the first major incident being Chapman Pincher, Daily Express defence correspondent. Ah, the days when the Express was an investigative broadsheet with pretty good (right of centre) reputation. How far they have fallen to today's comic...


"dischuffed"?

Surely "nonchuffed"? "Dischuffed" suggests that they had been previously chuffed with the Guardian.


Hmm, dischuffed has always seemed to be used simply for unhappy. Superlative Antonym: Chuffed to little mint balls.

You raise an interesting point which I shall have to ponder.

But can't I be disappointed by a particular movie, without being previously ... appointed ... by another from the same fim maker?


I'm pondering this too, and I'm willing to be wrong on it, but I would have said that you can't be disappointed by a movie without having had some sort of raised expectation about it. If you thought it would be rubbish you wouldn't be disappointed.

"Dis" always suggests to me some sort of removal, rather than just the absence of.


My dislike of mornings does not, I hope, suggest I ever liked them. A disability isn't always an ability that's lost. etc.

So many exceptions, I sometimes wonder how others ever end up learning good English. :)


The dis- prefix just means "not". https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-

The link you posted starts by giving three definitions, only one of which corresponds with "not". Maybe you meant to post a different link?

It adequately demonstrates that “dis-” does not necessarily imply anything more than “not”, which is all the weight it needs to carry in this discussion about whether “dischuffed” must, because of the prefix, mean “formerly chuffed but no longer”, instead of merely “not chuffed”.

I don't find that 'dissatisfied' or 'discontent' imply a previous satisfaction or contentment.

doubleplusunchuffed



Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: