Britain forced Guardian to destroy copy of Snowden material


By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The editor of the Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.

In an article posted on the British newspaper's website on Monday, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."

After further talks with the government, Rusbridger said, two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the ultra-secretive U.S. National Security Agency, visited the Guardian's London offices.

In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. "We can call off the black helicopters," Rusbridger says one of the officials joked.

The Guardian's decision to publicize the government threat - and the newspaper's assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain - appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret surveillance programs.

On Sunday, British authorities detained for nine hours the domestic partner of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian writer who met face to face in Hong Kong with Snowden and has written or co-authored many of the newspaper's stories based on his material.

The Guardian reported, and UK authorities subsequently confirmed, that David Miranda, Greenwald's Brazilian partner, was detained by British authorities under an anti-terrorism law as he was in transit from Berlin to Brazil and was changing planes at London's Heathrow Airport.

One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that while the United States did not ask British authorities to detain Miranda, British officials had given the United States a "heads up" about the British government's plan to question him.

Rusbridger, in his article on the Guardian's website, said that despite the destruction of the computers in London, he told British officials that due to the nature of "international collaborations" among journalists, it would remain possible for media organizations to "take advantage of the most permissive legal environments." Henceforth, he said, the Guardian "did not have to do our reporting from London."

A source familiar with the matter said that this meant British authorities were on notice that the Guardian was likely to continue to report on the Snowden revelations from outside British government jurisdiction.

Rusbridger said that in meetings with British officials before the computers were destroyed, he told them the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.

In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying.

During Miranda's trip to Berlin, which the Guardian said it had paid for, he visited with Laura Poitras, an independent film-maker who was the first journalist to interact with Snowden. Poitras co-authored stories based on Snowden's material for the Washington Post and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

Greenwald told the New York Times that Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda near Rio de Janeiro.

Greenwald said British authorities seized all electronic media, including data memory sticks, which Miranda was carrying. But Greenwald told the Forbes website that "everything" Miranda had "was heavily encrypted."

Greenwald did not immediately respond to an email from Reuters requesting comment.

While British authorities confirmed that Miranda had been detained under an anti-terrorism law, they did not further explain their actions. Brazil's government complained about Miranda's detention in a statement on Sunday that said the use of the British anti-terrorism law was unjustified.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Tim Dobbyn)

This on top of the detention of a Guardian journalist's boyfriend means that there is something in there that they're especially worried about. The British intelligence services don't play around when it comes time to shut someone up. Don't believe me? Read the story of Richard Tomlinson.

There is no First Amendment in Britain, so Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian were wise to back up their material all over the world. About all those British authorities accomplished was to make themselves look like foolish thugs.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I fully agree, what did they think they was going to accomplish by telling them to delete digital media? Once it's out, it is out for all to see.

White House, Downing Street Had Advance Knowledge Of Miranda Detention


Home Office claims journalist’s partner had “stolen information” that would “help terrorism”

Steve Watson
Prison Planet.com
August 20, 2013

The Guardian has an interesting splurge of NSA articles today further detailing the most likely unlawful detention of journalist Grenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda.

Revelations include the fact that both the Obama administration and the Cameron government were given a “heads up” before Miranda was taken into custody for nine hours at Heathrow airport.

The White House said the British government took the decision, and the British government said that the British “authorities” took the decision – hence both parties attempted to distance themselves from the debacle.

When the Home Office was pressed for information, a spokesperson suggested that Miranda had “highly sensitive stolen information” on his person “that would help terrorism”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security.” The Home Office spokesperson said, adding a rather threatening caveat, “Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. This is an ongoing police inquiry so we will not comment on the specifics.”

Miranda’s lawyers, who intend to take legal action, say that he was not given any reason for being detained, was denied an interpreter, and was not even allowed a pen to take notes of what he was being asked.

A British anti-terrorist legislation watchdog has demanded to know specifically why anti-terror laws were used to detain Miranda. David Anderson QC, called the nine hour detention “extremely unusual”.

Other reports have suggested that the “stolen information” referred to by the Home Office was a batch of encrypted files originating from Edward Snowden.

Other Guardian writers have pointed out that many journalists hold sensitive information and that “This counter-productive government action is a new threat to any journalist covering national security or defence matters.”

“…as journalists agree to indulge in self-censorship in the genuine interests of national security, Whitehall and its intelligence agencies continue to withhold information to protect themselves from embarrassment.” write Richard Norton-Taylor and Nick Hopkins.

“They do so, as they did on Monday in response to a question prompted by the release in Washington of official documents confirming US and British involvement in a coup that toppled the nationalist, democratically-elected, Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, sixty years ago, in 1953.” the writers add.

“ The government is going down a dangerous, counterproductive, path.” they continue. “It serves only to encourage distrust of the government’s motives, even more so since what the government is trying to cover up is the fast expanding capability of its intelligence agencies to spy with impunity on its own citizens – in case some time in the future they might conceivably pose some kind of threat to society.”

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s editor, also noted in a BBC interview, that conflating terrorism and journalism is a very slippery slope for any nation.

In another related and interesting piece linked to by The Guardian, writer Charlie Beckett at his LSE blog says the Miranda affair illustrates how the balance of power between governments and the media is shifting.

“These new forms of ‘outsider journalism’ when combined with the best of mainstream news media and when they exploit the power of new digital networks, create a communications power that is a serious challenge to authority.” writes Beckett. “It must be, that’s why they reacted like they did at Heathrow this week.” he adds.

“Political journalism has always been and always will be a struggle between those who have power and those who seek to expose its workings. I don’t know how you measure who’s winning at the moment but certainly the rules of engagement are changing because of new technologies and globalisation.” Beckett concludes.

You then have to remember that "We the people" are considere as "Enemy Combatants" in both the UK and the US.

What we call standing for our natural born rights they consider sedition against the states.

'Tens of Thousands' of Classified UK Intelligence Documents Found on Miranda's Property

By David Gilbert August 22, 2013


The Met has launched a criminal investigation following analysis of the data found on property seized from David Miranda which includes tens of thousands of classified UK intelligence documents.

Metropolitian Police open criminal investigation after Miranda Detention


David Miranda brought a legal challenge against the UK police after it seized his property at Heathrow airport. The high court granted him a limited injunction to prevent the police "inspecting, copying or sharing" the data stored on the property.

The police are allowed to examine the data for national security purposes or if they are investigating whether or not Miranda is himself involved in the commission, instigation or preparation of an act of terrorism.

The court also heard that the Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation after analysing the seized data. The investigation is being carried out by SO15, the group within the Met charged with investigating terrorist or extremist actions.

Jonathan Ladlaw QC, appearing for the Met, told the court that he could provide no more public information.

"I am not prepared to alert defendants here or abroad about the criminal investigation that has begun," he said.

Highly sensitive material

Ladlaw said police analysing the data stores on a laptop and phone seized from Miranda on Sunday had discovered "tens of thousands" of documents and if this "highly sensitive material" was released it would be "gravely injurious to public safety."

The documents were found on a laptop, two memory sticks, two DVDs, his phone, a Sony games console, a smartwatch and a hard drive.

Steven Kovats QC, who represents home secretary Theresa May, also briefed the court in relation to the documents found. He said the cache of data contains tens of thousands of classified UK intelligence documents "disclosure of which would risk lives."

Speaking in the court filing on behalf of her client, lawyer Gwendolen Morgan said: "The purpose of these proceedings is to protect the confidentiality of the sensitive journalistic material that was seized from the Claimant. Confidentiality, once lost, can clearly never be restored."

Miranda's claim to the high court followed written requests on Wednesday to both the home secretary and the Metropolitan police.

Whistleblower

Miranda is the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has published numerous secret documents related to mass government surveillance given to him by NSA-whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Miranda was detained at Heathrow airport on Sunday on his way home to Brazil from Germany under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, being held for the maximum allowable nine hours.

Earlier this week Miranda brought a legal challenge against the police questioning whether or not they had the right to seize his property.

Journalistic materials

Following his detention on Sunday many commentators debated whether or not Miranda could be considered a journalist. He was travelling to Germany on a flight paid for by the Guardian to exchange documents with journalist Laura Poitras, who worked with Glenn Greenwald to help publish Snowden's documents.

Speaking on behalf of Theresa May, Kovats said she "does not accept that we are concerned here with journalistic material" and believes Miranda "is not a journalist, and stolen documents can't be held in confidence and don't qualify as journalistic materials."

On Monday, the Guardian revealed that UK authorities had put it under pressure to destroy two laptops it had been given by Edward Snowden, and following threats of legal action, the Guardian physically destroyed the laptops under supervision from two security experts from GCHQ.

"Classified" is not a security classification under any nations security or legal system. It is a notice to look further and determin if you are supposed to be looking at, reading, hearing or even holding the document or object in question.
Back on:December 29, 2009 Obama issued Executive Order 13526- that gave his cjiefs the ability to classify anything they saw fit to restrict for any reason they wanted.

The same is true in many nations. The very fact we are talking about this could be a violation of the Federal Secrets act if Obama didn't like it.

This is why any of us who has a laptop, or any other type of digital storage device could find ourself in the same fix.

This is what they make encryption for, but it is a violation of FCC laws to send and receive Encrypted communications without a letter from the Government.

What do we expect? We are after all "ENemy Combatants" according to the Trading with the enemy act of 1916 as ammended by the NDAA 2009.

So in for a penny in for a pound.

This is what they make encryption for, but it is a violation of FCC laws to send and receive Encrypted communications without a letter from the Government.

Please tell us what FCC law this is, it’s Name, Number and where it can be found.

As a Ham I know it is a violatioin of FCC rules for a Ham to send over the air Communications in anyway but in the clear, but I have never read about of been told anything about any FCC Rule, Regulation or Law that prohibited all Encrypted Communications.

UK’s Suppression Of Freedom Of The Press Drives Guardian To Partner With NYT On Snowden Reporting


Mike Masnick
Techdirt
August 24, 2013

With the Guardian forced on orders directly from the Prime Minister’s office to physically destroy some hard drives with the Ed Snowden documents on them, the Guardian made it clear that the reporting on the leaks would continue, but out of its NY offices, rather than the London ones (and, of course, via Glenn Greenwald in Brazil and Laura Poitras in Germany). However, another bit of fallout from all of this is that the Guardian has teamed up with its nominal “competitor,” the NY Times to share some (not all) of the documents and to work together on the reporting of what’s in them.

Amusingly, this comes just after a NYT editor argued (somewhat ridiculously) that the NYT has done more to advance the story than any other publication after the very first stories from The Guardian and the Washington Post. That statement is laughable. While the NYT has done some very good reporting on all of this, the Washington Post and the Guardian have continued to “break” a variety of big stories from the documents. The NYT has certainly added to the coverage, and added very important details to some of those stories, but it’s been way, way, way behind. It will be interesting to see what happens now. Of course, one of the reasons why Snowden says he didn’t go to the NYT originally, was due to stories of how they held onto some other stories, such as the original story about warrantless wiretapping, which it held for many months at the request of the feds.

I stand corrected I can't find what I was refering to. Here ios what I did find

https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=170967&seqNum=14

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010spring/law/357c/001/EncryptionPolicy/LawStatutory.html

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Encryption