No, they didn’t. Eastasia won. Or Oceania won. One of either. I read it this morning, but of course I’d have to recheck, since that was 12 hours ago.
1 Like
There once was a man called Miranda,
who was engaged in counter propaganda.
Police didn’t respect his rights,
please expect similar shites,
going through Heathrow, not Uganda.
Dogs want to be subservient, they enjoy it.
1 Like
Interesting thought.
Citizen, why would the length of time since you read the newspaper have any impact upon the authenticity of the information?
You must not be remembering clearly.
Well yeah thats been the pattern for a while.
It goes a bit further than that. The UK can lock you up until you give them the password. Personally I won’t cross a border with any data I am not willing to give away.
That’s a clever idea. Next time I cross a border, I’ll make sure to have super-encrypted copies of all my most embarrassing fan fiction.
Maybe the Guardian IT department wanted to get an insurance payout on a couple of old macbooks.
It sounds to me like mere, sheer intimidation: “Keep up this shite and here’s just a taste of what we’ll do!”
It’s like a scene from the The Sopranos (but with different accents).
I fear that you may have over-rated the deterrent value of immediate, full disclosure. Once you step away from emotion, you can see that there are several critical facets here:
- The info is out of control of the NSA.
- The info is not coming back.
- The info will eventually be publicly disclosed. The pain of disclosure can not be avoided. It will happen eventually.
- Currently, Poitras and Greenwald are in the drivers seat, because they control the pace and method of disclosure. They have the initiative.
- If full, immediate disclosure was the best way to create change, then they would have done it already.
- If things do not change, we will see change that limits the power of the US Executive branch.
The Manning disclosure also had incredible stuff. But after the dance of distraction, nobody thinks of it anymore.
The main value of Snowden’s dead man’s switch is to protect Snowden. It doesn’t do the rest of us much good.
I suspect that some in the administration may be stalling full disclosure to prevent immediate pain. If they can put if off for a year or two, it becomes somebody else’s problem. But if they are thinking strategically they will try to force Poitras and Greenwald into immediate full disclosure.
Did the red pill wipe your memory?
I would expect that law on passwords only applies to suspects of actual crimes committed on UK soil. Miranda never crossed the UK border, and wasn’t charged. Apprehending him while in transit and then charging him of trumped-up crimes would have been a slap in the face of Brazilian authorities, and an instant business-killer for Heathrow. This government contains more idiots than average, but even they haven’t be so stupid to trash international law that much (to be fair, they got really close to storming the Ecuadorean embassy, so hey).
Yes he did. The airport in entirely inside the border, even though he was airside when he was interviewed. Plenty of people have been caught airside with drugs over the years and charged with possession under local laws.
The info will eventually be publicly disclosed. The pain of disclosure can not be avoided. It will happen eventually.
That’s not necessarily true. Or, rather… redacted, damaging info can be released down the road when it only serves to inform the public on previous misdeeds as opposed to harming current careers, corporate interests, profits, etc.
It’s the basis of the FOIA. Its purpose is for us to learn from past mistakes without harming current interests (as much). Nonetheless, the eventual release of all the info is not inevitable.
If full, immediate disclosure was the best way to create change, then they would have done it already
You’re confusing me… and I’m not sure you understood the points of my previous post you responded to. Are you saying that they should or shouldn’t fully disclose all info? You seem to be contradicting yourself from sentence to sentence in some cases.
If the US Intelligence agencies are planning ahead, they must realize that the only way to minimize the damage is to force Poitras and Greenwald into immediate complete disclosure. Once that happens, they can regain control and begin damage control.
You assume that the value of the information is very low. When careers are abruptly destroyed and corrupt power is diminished… that’s beyond damage control, it’s attending a funeral.
The Manning disclosure also had incredible stuff. But after the dance of distraction, nobody thinks of it anymore.
That’s completely false. You may need to speak for yourself or the mainstream media in that regard. The rest of society has been and continues to be directly influenced by Manning’s disclosures to this day.
Keep in mind, the mainstream media is never going to suddenly change course no matter what happens as long as they are owned by these guys. The fact that any issues that stem from Manning’s disclosures ever showed up on mainstream media at all (despite their self-interests) is a testament to the power of said disclosures, not the opposite.
The main value of Snowden’s dead man’s switch is to protect Snowden. It doesn’t do the rest of us much good.
That’s black and white thinking especially considering you likely have zero knowledge of what’s contained in Snowden’s insurance file. The corrupt have knowledge and/or strong suspicions of what the “insurance” contains by knowing the breadth of Snowden’s authorized and unauthorized access (by also having access themselves). They finally have a virtual gun put to their heads that exposes their corruption and treasonous profit-taking. If you can’t see how that could possibly assist the American public by helping to rein in their power, then we can just end this here.
Those in America (and elsewhere) that have worked within the U.S. government (and quasi-governmental and even corporate security entities) and have had access (authorized or otherwise) to classified information similar to Snowden’s aren’t going to agree with you here.
I’ll put it this way. A while ago when this all first started, there were many in these Boing Boing threads telling everyone (including me) how doomed Snowden was and how Russia/Putin was going to hand him right over (because Snowden’s insurance file meant nothing).
There was [cough] someone who corrected them… and has been now proven right over time.
Hey, speaking of which… what happened to all those posters who kept telling us Snowden was doomed to be turned in to the USA by Russia, anyway? They’ve seemed to have scurried away from this topic for some strange reason. Where’d they go?
I suspect that some in the administration may be stalling full disclosure to prevent immediate pain. If they can put if off for a year or two, it becomes somebody else’s problem. But if they are thinking strategically they will try to force Poitras and Greenwald into immediate full disclosure.
Sorry, but to me, you’re not making sense and you keep contradicting yourself. I’m not sure how to respond to that, but I do suspect you might need to organize your thoughts on this subject a bit more.
1 Like
That’s a clever idea. Next time I cross a border, I’ll make sure to have super-encrypted copies of all my most embarrassing fan fiction.
How about your less-embarrassing bank account information? Or access to all your passwords, etc. to all your other accounts? Or any proprietary business information (if you are into that sort of “kinky” thing)?
That would take work. My plan is to have a fresh copy of the OS of my choice on a recently Gutmann-wiped (or brand new!) hard drive with nothing else on it anyway. I have no intention of crossing the border with real data of any kind.
Now, I’ll just add GPG and a few megs worth of poorly written text smut (probably have to dump it into something silly like powerpoint if I want to get the size up to a decent level) encrypted two or three times and try to look sheepish.
All of this operates under the assumption that I’ll ever have enough money to leave the country again. *le sigh*
1 Like
All of this operates under the assumption that I’ll ever have enough money to leave the country again. le sigh
If you live in the USA, you can get searched and abused just the same by simply driving within 100 miles of the border.
Good point. I guess I should break out the map and figure out if I’m already within 100 miles of the coast. It might be too late for me.
Melodrama not for purposes of sarcasm. More along the lines of gallows humor.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
