Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:04 am  

DaveO wrote:

The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive.

I admit to laughing out loud in the car when I heard on the radio yesterday that Downing Street had contacted The Guardian directly to insist that "THE computer" which held the documents in question was destroyed followed by assurances that "THE" computer had indeed had its hard drive trashed at government request.

Phew, so thats ok then, well done Downing Street for quickly ensuring that the stolen digital documents were deleted so effectively, no doubt some lacky from the PM's office was sent to The Guardians offices to witness an old Amstrad PC2086 being wrecked with a sledgehammer after being assured that THIS was the computer that the documents were being stored on.

Once again, parliament assuming that its public are as stupid as its representatives.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:39 am  

Cronus wrote:

They seized what they suspected (correctly) he was carrying and released him. They weren't wrong: he was carrying stolen data.

Let's not forget, they were correct and he was carrying stolen information. All this speculation is largely irrelevant, the intelligence was correct.

How do you know this?

No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true

Cronus wrote:

Yet when it's a Westerner who incidentally is banging some Guardian journalist he should be allowed to carry stolen data?

Since when have Brazilians been classed as "westerners"?

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:49 am  

Cronus wrote:

Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized.

Seen as my response was ignored by LGJM about similar statements, maybe you could have a go at answering the below?

Determine what makes a file classified.

Should all classified files remain so?

Do you trust the government to act honestly and within the law? If they are in breach of the law, do you expect them to declassify files identifying such breaches?

Does is it therefore matter who exposed said breach or how they obtained the information?

Or is this all a case of the government sympathisers living life by the adage of 'ignorance is bliss'?

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:37 am  

Cronus wrote:

Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was...

That's a rather narrow, naive and airily vacuous view.
Using the (legal) get-out clause in the act to detain the man and then letting the guy go after the nine hours ... without charge ... tells me that whilst it may have been legal to detain him, they were unable to charge him with any terrorist-related offence under any part of the act.
This calls into question the use (or abuse) of the act in this way ... given that it has been misused before.
The data has been destroyed (or at least the thickos in Whitehall think it has) but the guy has been released without charge ... don't you find that somewhat disturbing? If it was illegal data, why was he released? If it was illegal data, why is Rusbridger still uncharged?

Cronus wrote:

They seized what they suspected (correctly) he was carrying and released him. They weren't wrong: he was carrying stolen data. The Terrorism Act 40(1)(b) defines a terrorist as someone "concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". It's not hard to see how someone actively engaged in distributing stolen classified and sensitive, and potentially dangerous, information could easily fall within that definition.

Cronus wrote:

... Let's not forget, the intelligence services were correct. Not guilt by association, just plain guilt...

Guilt?
They let him go after 9 hours, not on bail but leaving the country, uncharged with anything.
So, guilty of what?

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:56 am  

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... http://www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... http://www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am  

Derwent wrote: The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... http://www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes. Bindmans (Miranda's solicitors) are currently arguing in court that as a transit passenger, he wasn't technically in the UK and there fore Schedule 7 had no bearing. the twitterati can follow @carlgardner for up to date tweets from court

Derwent wrote: The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... http://www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes. Bindmans (Miranda's solicitors) are currently arguing in court that as a transit passenger, he wasn't technically in the UK and there fore Schedule 7 had no bearing. the twitterati can follow @carlgardner for up to date tweets from court

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:49 am  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

Seen as my response was ignored by LGJM about similar statements, maybe you could have a go at answering the below?

Determine what makes a file classified.

Should all classified files remain so?

Do you trust the government to act honestly and within the law? If they are in breach of the law, do you expect them to declassify files identifying such breaches?

Does is it therefore matter who exposed said breach or how they obtained the information?

Or is this all a case of the government sympathisers living life by the adage of 'ignorance is bliss'?

I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you probably. But when Greenwald (eventually) admits that he was actually carrying confidential files, it's pretty much good enough for me.

I have very little trust in govt's. My initial reaction was 100% against the government. But having read a little of the details of Greenwald and Miranda, I'm starting to have as little trust in them as I have in the government.

When this broke it was definitely along the lines of "Miranda has nothing to do with this story. The government are intimidating me through my partner". That has quickly been shown to be a a complete lie. Miranda was working with Greenwald, his flights were being paid by The Guardian, he was blatantly involved.

I don't like what the govt are doing. I do think they abuse powers and that should be a worry for every citizen. I think that they'll have some judge declare whatever they've done legal. But I think The Guardian have pretty much set this situation up and are milking it for all it's worth, so my interest in the case is rapidly disappearing.

It's become a case of political and legal football. TBH I want both sides to lose because neither of them are worthy of support.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:04 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I admit to laughing out loud in the car when I heard on the radio yesterday that Downing Street had contacted The Guardian directly to insist that "THE computer" which held the documents in question was destroyed followed by assurances that "THE" computer had indeed had its hard drive trashed at government request.

Phew, so thats ok then, well done Downing Street for quickly ensuring that the stolen digital documents were deleted so effectively, no doubt some lacky from the PM's office was sent to The Guardians offices to witness an old Amstrad PC2086 being wrecked with a sledgehammer after being assured that THIS was the computer that the documents were being stored on.

Once again, parliament assuming that its public are as stupid as its representatives.

I think you've misunderstood. The Guardian have frankly confirmed that they have taken copies of the files that were on the computer. They didn't want to hand the computer over because they want to protect their source and so the deal to destroy it was no more than the solution to that impasse. Not some weird belief that if they destroy the computer they destroy the files.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:23 am  

Louise Mensch gets owned on twitter

Louise Mensch gets owned on twitter

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:40 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you probably. But when Greenwald (eventually) admits that he was actually carrying confidential files, it's pretty much good enough for me.

I have very little trust in govt's. My initial reaction was 100% against the government. But having read a little of the details of Greenwald and Miranda, I'm starting to have as little trust in them as I have in the government.

When this broke it was definitely along the lines of "Miranda has nothing to do with this story. The government are intimidating me through my partner". That has quickly been shown to be a a complete lie. Miranda was working with Greenwald, his flights were being paid by The Guardian, he was blatantly involved.

I don't like what the govt are doing. I do think they abuse powers and that should be a worry for every citizen. I think that they'll have some judge declare whatever they've done legal. But I think The Guardian have pretty much set this situation up and are milking it for all it's worth, so my interest in the case is rapidly disappearing.

It's become a case of political and legal football. TBH I want both sides to lose because neither of them are worthy of support.

I didn't ask about this case in particular. I have already understood your position on the matter. What I was asking you was at what point is it ok for someone to be in possession of confidential files? You state your distrust of the government, so you obviously don't believe that they will come clean about any indiscretions, so it will have to take for somebody to break rank and give a journalist some information whether it is rightly in said persons possession in the first place or not.

I can't understand your position on the matter. You seem to be in support of the release of information, but against the persons releasing or in possession of the information. Miranda was possibly in possession of information similar to the information that informed everyone that the government is spying on us. Why therefore do you believe "He was correctly detained and the information seized"?