My apologies everyone, I got the names wrong as you have all kindly pointed out. But my amended assertion remains cogent nevertheless.

"The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Greenwalds partner, he may have known as much as Greenwald did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true."

Sorry folks.

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true.

David Miranda is not the partner of Edward Snowden, but of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian journalist.

Yes, a not a journalist, who was highly likely to be in possession of state secrets and preparing to pass them on to the terrorist enemy via publication.

---

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true.

David Miranda is not the partner of Edward Snowden, but of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian journalist.

---

I an see where both Hev and Es come from, in that the response to this Miranda business does seem disproportionate given the circumstances. First of all Snowden abused his position of trust to leak secrets from two major world powers, to the press. He says he did this as the people have the right to know what is being secretly done behind the scenes without their knowledge, and in their name. However it is quite possible that in so doing he has left both countries more vulnerable to further terrorist attacks.

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true. That is simply assuming guilt by association though. This hard drive business in the papers basement, when there copies elsewhere in the world was for two reasons. By handing over the hard drives their sourcs may have been compromised, and secondly the officials that oversaw the destruction were clearly trying to make a rather heavy handed point.

There needs to be a balance struck between personal freedoms and national security, and I don't think we have that yet. Wouldn't it be a lot easier all round to give government statements along the lines of "After 9/11 and 7/7 our countries governments are committed to protecting the people from further outrages as far as is practically possible. To this end anyone that comes to our attention as being involved in such activities, or likely to be in any way, are liable to be monitored and have their communications intercepted".

But if governments are routinely intercepting everyone's phone calls and emails etc on a daily basis, as a matter of course just in case they might need to look closer at the data in future, that is not acceptable to the majority of people. However you could look at it this way. Say in the future a terrorist with a bomb is intercepted and imprisoned. It would be very useful to look back a couple of years on that persons activities prior to the arrest to see what planning was done, and with whom? Who were their associates who maybe took no part in it, but had agreed with what they were doing, and might themselves take over. Terrorists rarely work alone there is usually a cell or backup support behind them, that also need to be rooted out.

I'm not sure there is ever going to be answer to this that will suit everybody.

Wonder how much Snowden material is UK secret that was shared with the NSA? I'm sure we have given the UK a list of files he downloaded ...

Will we ever know? This is more than an irritating flea on Americas back
so thank-goud the UK's involved and not the French. You'd only get your files
back off that lot once money had crossed hands first. America knows who's it's
best friend is even if some state, "we have to sleep in the dog's basket though".

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Meanwhile I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide so I'll be ok.

Wonder how much Snowden material is UK secret that was shared with the NSA? I'm sure we have given the UK a list of files he downloaded ...

---

New blood? Was I gone so long that you forgot who I am?

It did seem that you were away for some while yes, but we never forgot you. The reason for your break was a very valid one. OK, how about "a fresh viewpoint" then, happy with that one ;-))

@Hev - welcome back to you too, another fresh view which has been missed ;-)

A quote from that Guardian article.

The editor promised that the Guardian will “continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won’t do it in London. The seizure of Miranda’s laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald’s work.” Another US security source told Reuters that Miranda’s detention was meant to send a message to those who received Snowden’s classified documents, about how serious the UK is in closing all the leaks in relation to the whistleblower’s revelations.

Ok, you'll get nobbled somewhere else then.

Greenwald, who first published secrets leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, responded by promising to release more documents. He added that the UK would be “sorry” for detaining his partner for nine hours.

Ooooh scratch your eyes out sweetie.

Should read, "British equivalent"...since GCHQ was formed in November 1919 and the National Security Agency was not formed until 1949.

Extra info - The Government Code & Cypher School was formed in 1919 by amalgamating MI1b and NID25. It was at Bletchley Park During WWII, and was renamed GCHQ after the war in 1946 when it moved to Cheltenham. The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) was created in 1949, and renamed the NSA in 1951.

Brief background

Snowden is an American computer specialist who worked for the CIA and the NSA and leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press. Based on information Snowden leaked to The Guardian in 2013 while employed at NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, the British newspaper published a series of exposés that revealed programs such as the interception of U.S. and European telephone metadata and the PRISM, XKeyscore, and Tempora Internet surveillance programs.

On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property. Snowden had left the United States prior to the publication of his disclosures, first to Hong Kong and then to Russia, where he received temporary asylum and now resides in an undisclosed location.

Snowden has been a subject of controversy: he has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a traitor, and a patriot. Snowden has defended his leaks as an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." Some U.S. officials condemned his actions as having done "grave damage" to the U.S. intelligence capabilities while others, such as former president Jimmy Carter, have applauded his actions

50% seem to think that Snowden did good, 50% think he did bad. Is anyone surprised?

Because of the special relationship between the UK and the USA, obviously the NSA & GCHQ, MI6 & CIA, MI5 & FBI, work closely together. Is anyone surprised?

Of course the Guardian would make a fuss about one of it's own reporters. Is anyone surprised?

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters. In Polly Toynbee land, the bourgeois still believe they are out to get them. Is anyone surprised?

UK still the US lapdog:

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours

Try, "Bulldog", for there's no Poodle in us....

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

From an alternative news source UK ordered Guardian to destroy hard drives in effort to stop Snowden revelations

Quote from Hev's attachment above..

After more talks, two "security experts" from GCHQ - the British version of the National Security Agency - visited the Guardian’s London offices.

Should read, "British equivalent"...since GCHQ was formed in November 1919 and
the National Security Agency was not formed until 1949.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

The guy isn't a terroist.

Of course not, he is just a messenger for one ...

Snowden is not a terrorist, Traitor maybe.

---

[/quote]

Old James

From an alternative news source UK ordered Guardian to destroy hard drives in effort to stop Snowden revelations

The guy isn't a terroist.

Of course not, he is just a messenger for one ...

---

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual

Welcome back Es, you certainly stirred up a hornets nest with this one! Good for you I say, we need some new blood around here.

New blood? Was I gone so long that you forgot who I am?

I was busy, plus I needed a break from the rabid teaparty taliban here. It was making me lose my faith in humanity. ;)

---

Reality Internet Personality

The entire intent of this stop was to get all the data on all the devices he was carrying. Cross a border and everything is subject to inspection, even your poop. I'm sure they held him as long as they could while they were furiously looking through the data to see if there was anything to charge him with. When time ran out they let him go. Doesn't mean they won't find something in the next coming days and weeks.

This is really pretty SOP when you present yourself to customs to enter any country. Most of the time they just collect the duties and wave you through. But, if they think you went on a sex tour in countries with underage prostitutes, all your electronics will be given a careful look to see if you were stupid enough to have taken a photo proving your guilt. Same if they think you might be laundering money or working in the drug trade. They just extended this to terrorism. BFD.

I think you got that backwards. They extended terrorism to mean being a journalist.

The guy isn't a terroist.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The entire intent of this stop was to get all the data on all the devices he was carrying. Cross a border and everything is subject to inspection, even your poop. I'm sure they held him as long as they could while they were furiously looking through the data to see if there was anything to charge him with. When time ran out they let him go. Doesn't mean they won't find something in the next coming days and weeks.

This is really pretty SOP when you present yourself to customs to enter any country. Most of the time they just collect the duties and wave you through. But, if they think you went on a sex tour in countries with underage prostitutes, all your electronics will be given a careful look to see if you were stupid enough to have taken a photo proving your guilt. Same if they think you might be laundering money or working in the drug trade. They just extended this to terrorism. BFD.

---

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual

Welcome back Es, you certainly stirred up a hornets nest with this one! Good for you I say, we need some new blood around here.

So you are saying that abuse of the law resulting in an unlawful detention of an innocent person on purely political grounds is a small incident? Historically, it is exactly this sort of thing that leads to revolutions.

Abuse of the law is abuse of the law. How far would you or I get detaining people because we were pissed off about something?

To be fair, I don't understand the finer workings of UK law. The people responsible for this event should be given the benefit of the doubt, and given their day in court to explain their actions. The courts should also be deciding if it is in the public interest to allow the accused to wander the streets while awaiting their day in court, or if we are all safer with the individuals locked up.

If you are saying that the event was not an abuse of the law, there are slander laws that can be used to prevent people from making untrue accusations. Has the UK government taken any such action yet?

---

A fuss about a small incident. The Guardian would support one of its own wouldn't it? Not worth a thread on it's own.

...and your thoughts on the "small" incident had it been you detained?

---

A fuss about a small incident. The Guardian would support one of its own wouldn't it? Not worth a thread on it's own.