Try not looking at the world in terms of black or white, right or wrong.
1 Like
I thought of steganography, but if you are being targeted, that doesnât really work, does it? As in any cat videos etc you might send are likely to be analysed on the assumption that they might contain material, and if you have the resources of the NSA, you could do that. Perhaps an awful lot of cat videos?
Strong encryption is a bit of a risk, because it assumes the maths hasnât been cracked yet (and kept confidential).
So no, it isnât easy, but I canât help thinking a USB stick on a family member isnât the best option.
1 Like
âI already share [David Mirandaâs defiance over being illegally detained and harassed], as Iâm certain US and UK authorities will soon see.â
OH SNAP. I canât wait to see what Greenwaldâs response will be.
Then you can just sit back and pop open a cold one. Youâre getting what you want, so why be outraged? Why not soberly move on to the next fight?
1 Like
0.o Come on now, you must b trolling.
3 Likes
Mate, this isnât some random piece of policy. ITâS THE GOVERNMENT BREAKING LAWS.
If its not within your agenda and worldview to do what you can to bring
that to light then, well, stfu.
2 Likes
Nope. Sorry to disappoint.
In which case Iâm not going to murder you. Please be grateful for this gift. I might push you over, but remember, you must be grateful that Iâm not doing anything worse, irrelevant of any injustice involved.
Understand now?
1 Like
Youâre right. A politician is sending a letter to the Border Agency. Job done, lets all go home, justice is served.
What a Pillock.
1 Like
My thought too⊠No more food for it from me.
1 Like
Alas! The British Government did this sort of thing pretty regularly since the 18th century, mainly to Irish people.
It got a lot better after the Good Friday Agreement, but they reinflated the whole rubber duckie of their âsecurityâ apparatus after 9-11 (with some justifaction, it has to be said).
Like all security machines, it grew and grew, taking over as much power as possible and screw the legalities.
1 Like
Even if it were true that Miranda was carrying files from Snowden on behalf of Greenwald as a bitmule, itâs not terrorism to be doing that, because itâs not terrorism to embarrass the government or an ally of the government, itâs tough shit for Obama and Cameron. We need police who have the courage to recognise that theyâre not shills for the incumbent government of the day, and then act accordingly.
We need to know who ordered this detention - was it a misguided initiative by the border police themselves, or more likely were they instructed to abuse the law by a minister? How did it happen, who authorised it, how can it be prevented in future?
3 Likes
I know this will be unpopular here, but if Greenwaldâs boyfriend/husband/partner was delivering documents to other parties, documents that were illegally obtained by Snowden, why is Greenwald even the least bit surprised that Miranda was detained? It smacks of opportunistic outrage, something I think Greenwald seems to have a habit of.
2 Likes
Well, except for the part âOur lives are very comfortableâ, being British didnât used to be an impediment to drawing and quartering, eh? You can always use our (Canadian) technique: beat them up then apologize.
Notwithstanding for the fact that the population ended up electing the Harperâs Conservatives to power in 2006 (albeit as a minority government) - at least they sent a very, very clear message in the 1993 election, by reducing the 151-seat majority to two seats (stripping the Progressive Conservative party of âofficial statusâ).
Of course, just like the present situation in Canada, you have to have a legitimate, electable Opposition which isnât a lapdog. Too many All of your leaders are the product of public (that is âprivateâ) schools, thus their loyalty is to themselves, first and only. If only they used loyalty=probity as their guiding principle.
1 Like
That clause (not needing grounds for suspicion to stop someone) can be directly linked to complaints by Irish people who were stopped in droves in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. When it was pointed out that virtually no arrests ensued, the government protested that their power to stop was one of the best âintelligence-gatheringâ mechanisms they had, even though it ostensibly required suspicion of terrorist links. So rather than have to make that excuse again, the new law Tony Blair brought in just dropped any pretense.
Donât worry: if youâre innocent, you have nothing to fear, citizen! (Oh: in the UK, youâre a âsubjectâ, not a citizen.)
2 Likes
I whole heartedly agree.
Actually we are citizens 
Weâre just also subjects.
1 Like
Thatâs nice, but if you actually stop the people in the UK from saying âOKâ and actually DOING this stuff, itâd stop the person in the US (who may or may not exist) from having any power.
Itâs not JUST the US here. Pretending thereâs some mythical US shadow running these things ignores the civil rights the UK was violating before. Like that brazillian guy who got shot 7 times in the head?
Focus on holding your people to account. Thatâll take all the power away from anyone who MAY be running this show.
2 Likes
basically because itâs not in any way, shape, or form an act of terrorism to transport âstolenâ or leaked documents. If the police had a reasonable suspicion that Miranda was carrying âstolen propertyâ on him, then thereâs an established mechanism for pursuing him, it involves detention for up to an hour before being arrested or set free, questioning under caution if arrested, the right to independent legal council provided at the governmentâs expense, the right to refuse to answer questions, and an explanation of what inferences the court can draw if you maintain silence and you are brought to trial, e.g. due process.
The allegation that the police are abusing terrorist legislation is serious, because by crying âTerroristâ the police are allowed a longer detention without charge, during which it becomes a criminal offence to refuse to answer any question put to you by an officer - no right to silence - no right to legal council. Itâs an abuse of process.
5 Likes
I was just making a funny, but in all seriousness we do have a stiff upper lip that tends to result in people being frustratingly blazé about things, whereas our French neighbours make a stand about absolutely everything (a quality to admire, IMO).
The important bit is the comfortable lives bit - no revolution is going to take place until things get really bad. But yes, for us to overthrown anything, we need something to replace it with. That can be just as messy, if not messier. Unfortunately even if we were to do that Iâd worry that it would be someone like UKIP that would end up in power. *shudders*
1 Like
