Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Members of Parliament Demand Explanation For Detention of David Miranda

samzenpus posted 1 year,14 days | from the explain-yourself dept.

Privacy 321

megla writes "Yesterday Slashdot covered reports that David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was detained. Now, various MPs and other public figures have expressed their unease over the detention and demanded justification for the incident from the police. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities, Brazil has stated that it expects no repeat of the incident, and one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"

cancel ×

321 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Would not have expected? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,14 days | (#44608493)

Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

Re:Would not have expected? (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608579)

The representatives that passed the legislation might not have expected it. But I'm sure the people who wrote it probably did.

Re:Would not have expected? (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608807)

Nah, they probably weren't using their brains either.

Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Law used to have public debate before being passed. Laws created behind closed doors then rushed through voting will always have bad side effects.

Re:Would not have expected? (4, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608987)

Nah, they probably weren't using their brains either.

Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Law used to have public debate before being passed. Laws created behind closed doors then rushed through voting will always have bad side effects.

Except you always reverse that when it comes to government, then it is usually malice disguised as stupidity. If they didn't have to worry about reelection they wouldn't even bother with the disguise of stupidity.

Re:Would not have expected? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609177)

Please, they don't bear guises of stupidity. They they pretend to be "doing the right thing". I think you're seriously overestimating the competence of lawmakers here.

Re:Would not have expected? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609285)

Please, they don't bear guises of stupidity. They they pretend to be "doing the right thing". I think you're seriously overestimating the competence of lawmakers here.

Actually, they use the 'Triad of Truth' of politics: Claim to be doing the right thing; Hide your malicious intent; Feign ignorance when discovered. Ironic that the Triad of Truth doesn't contain any.

Re:Would not have expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609193)

And never put down to stupidity what can adequately be explained by either greed or power.

Captcha: idealism

Re:Would not have expected? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608985)

The ends justify the means. This is how laws like this are passed.

Do you know what the problem is with the ends justify the means? It assumes that you can predict the future. And in complex cases involving millions of human beings, you generally can't. This is why smart people depend on principles instead. They know they can't predict the future, but they can learn from the past. Throwing out the principles of detention only upon reasonable suspicion, not being forced to self incriminate, and the ability to consult legal counsel to somehow get an edge over terrorists flying to Britain is incredibly short-sighted. History has repeatedly shown what has happened when those principles were abandoned, and it wasn't pretty. But then again, I'm not an British MP who can see into the future and knows that this type of law is the only thing preventing terrorists from detonating a nuke in the Tower of London.

Re:Would not have expected? (5, Insightful)

sherrane (2847537) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608581)

Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

Are they idiots? No. Do they think we're idiots? You'd have to be an idiot if you didn't realize every politician on the planet thinks we are all idiots.

Re:Would not have expected? (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608689)

Are they idiots? No. Do they think we're idiots? You'd have to be an idiot if you didn't realize every politician on the planet thinks we are all idiots.

And they're mostly right.

Re:Would not have expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609153)

Unfortunately, politicians don't have better IQs than the general population.

System may be working? (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608645)

If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

True, but as you say that is true for all laws and we certainly cannot have a society without laws so this is a problem we will always have to deal with. So this is not something stupid: this is the first signs of the system hopefully working as it should. An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to be held to account for it with appropriate sanctions, i.e. not just a slap on the knuckles for something as serious as this appears to be. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope that the system works.

Re:System may be working? (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608715)

An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to be held to account for it with appropriate sanctions, i.e. not just a slap on the knuckles for something as serious as this appears to be.

Appropriate sanctions being jail time for the kidnapping of this man. The most you're actually going to see is a censure, and we'll be lucky if we get that.

Re:System may be working? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608725)

Laws used to have public debate and input before being put up for vote.

This seems to happen less and less often these days, with predictable results.

Re:System may be working? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608825)

But the Obama promised us that it would change. Your argument is invalid and you're a racist.

Re:System may be working? (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608951)

...Because Obama really does write laws for the United Kingdom.

You do know that there are countries outside of the USA, right?

Re:System may be working? (1)

RoboRay (735839) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608997)

If it looks like a duck... and quacks like a duck...

Re:System may be working? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608975)

Teabaggers keep filibustering every change President Obama tries to make.

Teabaggers like Rand Paul even filibuster to criticize President Obama when they have exactly the same stance.

Re:System may be working? (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609001)

But the Obama promised us that it would change. Your argument is invalid and you're a racist.

this happened in england, unless obama has started wareing a dress drinking tea and become an old queen you post is offtopic

Re:System may be working? (4, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609073)

But the Obama promised us that it would change. Your argument is invalid and you're a racist.

Obama doesn't dictate what the UK government does.

No, hang on, he does. The UK government even goes to war when the US commands it to. Mind you that was partially down to the Christian nut-job war-criminal Blair and his Christian fundamentalist agenda.

Re:System may be working? (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608891)

There is public debate and input: election cycles. It is unreasonable to expect public debate of every law when understanding such laws in detail (as opposed to misunderstanding it or falling for a caricature the opposition spreads in the popular press) requires considerable legal training. While there will always be some tiny amount of votes who read the text of a law and write in to their representatives to voice their opinion, the general public is simply incapable of following the detailed legalese involved.

Re:System may be working? (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608915)

If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

Re:System may be working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609041)

Joe Public is free to consult an attorney before embarking on some action he's unsure about.

Re:System may be working? (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609147)

Joe Public is free to consult an attorney before embarking on some action he's unsure about.

So every morning when he wakes up, he has to call a lawyer and ask whether he's breaking any new laws?

Re:System may be working? (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609083)

If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

Joe Public is not meant to understand the law. Joe Public is just meant to stay afraid of the police so he is controllable.

Re:System may be working? (1)

alexgieg (948359) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609251)

If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

Bad from our perspective, good from theirs. It makes sense for power hungry politicians to have as many ways to persecute enemies, real or imaginary, as possible. A huge set of arbitrary, ambiguous laws which the powers that be can or not apply to individuals is all they want, because with them everyone is guilty of something and then it's just a matter of choosing who to silence and how to best silence them given the set of laws that can be applied to his "case".

I don't know about the US or the UK, but here in Brazil someone once calculated, adding up the federal, state and local levels, that we have about 15 million laws. Some of those have thousands of pages. How many people in a population of 150 million do you want to bet can claim to not be breaking any of them?

That's what politicians like, and thus everyone's a criminal, no exceptions.

Re:System may be working? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608805)

The law is ripe for abuse as written:

Miranda was stopped at the airport, presumably under the terms of Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] Schedule 7: "Ports and Border Controls"(on page 108)

"Power to stop, question and detain

2.—(1) An examining ocer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and
(b) the examining ocer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(4) An examining ocer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)."(emphasis mine)

The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')

FOIA US Embassy (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608983)

We need a FOIA of the London US Embassy call records the day before and the day of this premeditated attack.

This garbage is no different than the no-fly threats against the President of Bolivia.

Re:System may be working? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608993)

I hope they gave Glenn Greenwald a receipt, and got a receipt for his receipt.

Re:System may be working? (2)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609013)

You hope that the same system that allows police murder will prevent police theft and 9 hours of interrogation?

The UK police have done far worse and got away with it.

Re:Would not have expected? (1)

arisvega (1414195) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608821)

[..] and one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'

This, even in the slim chance that is the truth, is absolutely no excuse. They should at least try to act responsible by cleaning after their own mess.

Re:Would not have expected? (2)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608965)

Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

They are idiots because they believed that police powers would be only used for the purpose they intended. Now the idiots have given the thugs these extra powers they will never be revoked and the thugs will start begging for even more powers to harass the innocent.

Re:Would not have expected? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608989)

Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

See, this is the point most people miss - you only know when a law, any law, is abused when someone who cares whether it has been abused knows about it. Until that point you could detain, beat, torture anyone you want. That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

Re:Would not have expected? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609101)

So you're saying we should be thankful that the police don't randomly detain, beat and torture more of us?

Well yeah I suppose, but I think we should be holding them to a higher standard than that. We're paying them, after all.

Re:Would not have expected? (2)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609209)

See, this is the point most people miss - you only know when a law, any law, is abused when someone who cares whether it has been abused knows about it

I guarantee you, every traveler who has been detained against his will knows and cares about it.

That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

No, what would speak well of society is when every abuse of rights gets the same degree of outrage we see today.

Re:Would not have expected? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609247)

That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

Either that or we just don't know about it because it happens to people that are undesirable that don't get much sympathy in the media.

Re:Would not have expected? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609097)

It just seems typical of politicians today. It often seems like they've forgotten their history, so they repeat it over and over again.

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

Re:Would not have expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609195)

It's not that we're idiots, it's that we're too lazy and too comfortable with our lifestyles to get off our ass and do something about.

The proper reaction to this would be that people worldwide stop all travel to the UK immediately, and tell the Brits why their tourism income has plunged to near zero. But no, it's been someone's life-long dream to visit the Buckingham Palace and anyways it would cost lots of money to cancel the trip so we'll just go on with our lives, and lie to ourselves that politicians and the police are good people really and will fix everything for us.

The politicians aren't idiots either, they know we're lazy and we'll let them get away with a lot as long as we still have enough to eat and sleep and catch a movie once in a while.

no no no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44608525)

draconian laws are only for hte bad guys, if the good guys jsut follow the letter of the law everything will be fine

Hysterical Quote from Legislator (5, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | 1 year,14 days | (#44608527)

one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"

Of course you weren't: In fact, you weren't thinking about the potential for abuse at all when you passed this bill because even though you were warned by civil libertarians before the passage of the bill that such abuse was not only likely but inevitable, you were more afraid of the quivering masses of voters you believed would spend the next decade hiding under their sofas waiting for the end of the world to worry about such pleasantries. "This is war!" you told us, at the time.

Choke, now, on your own lack of foresight.

When the human race eventually gets around to causing its own extinction it will undoubtedly be caused by a total lack of foresight.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608617)

Faux outrage for faux news... Don't believe any of this crap. It's all a big show

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609283)

Faux outrage for faux news... Don't believe any of this crap. It's all a big show

Are you an agent provocateur? Which agency do you work for? If it is all a big show, what is the truth? Stop trying to distract everyone from the scandal. Either tell us what you know or shut the hell up. In case you cannot read the summary, we are talking about the unlawful detention of a journalist and the theft of their property without any probable cause. All of this happened to intimidate the other journalist.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (5, Insightful)

jkflying (2190798) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608675)

Even better:

Ms Cooper said the situation must be "investigated and clarified urgently", adding: "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse."

So, it's the public perception that's an issue here, not the misuse of powers. Interesting Ms Cooper, interesting. Do you have anything else to add?

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608783)

In politics, it seems like perception is everything. Politicians don't care about substance, but they care about looking like they care about substance. They don't actually want to do anything for fear of what they did negatively impacting their PR but they also don't want to be seen as do-nothings. In other words, in politics, it's all about the spin.

So this politician is just fearing that the spin will "go wrong" since that's what politicians care about. Meanwhile, the rest of us don't care about the spin. We care about the misuse of powers that caused something bad to happen.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (1)

Acapulco (1289274) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609105)

Perception doesn't seem to be everything. It IS everything

As someone told me once, politics or ars politica, is the art of negotiation. I would venture a guess that when negotiating something that's not directly "yours" i.e. on behalf of someone else (the people) perception is king. If you can fool your oponent into perceiving something as you would like it to be, you have much more leverage than if you don't. Lather, rinse and repeat and you have politicians choosing their words very very carefully, with the only intent of being able to change perceptions at will. So if it suits them to say something that makes the public believe it one way, but then it also allows them to later change that perception if things don't go as expected, you have a perception game after all.

Methinks.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608817)

You've misread her statement.

As far as she's concerned, there has not been any misuse (even though they're admitting they know nothing about the specifics of this case), therefore any perception of such would be unwarranted and must be avoided.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608833)

Perhaps we need expanded powers to control dissemination of information prejudicial to public support for anti-terrorism powers... That seems like the correct solution.

Re:Hysterical Quote from Legislator (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608921)

Choke, now, on your own lack of foresight.

Choke on your own lack of foresight. Any "rage" coming from establish political entities is nothing more than pandering with absolutely no intentions of righting these wrongs. Just like how the left in the US howled with anger at the Patriot Act who are now tight lipped since it has become a tool of the Obama administration. The right will be no different if they take power in the next election. They'll cry foul today and abuse the law tomorrow.

We will be bogged down in this quagmire for as long as people keep believing in the concept of the lesser of two evils and the evils can keep pointing the finger at the other saying "but they did it first." Not to even mention the idiocy of the sheep when they feel that presidents don't veto laws that they're "against" to try to maintain some balance in power. Total garbage.

"Privacy" (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | 1 year,14 days | (#44608535)

I don't know what the laws are in Britain, but whenever an incident like this occurs in Canada, the response from The Man is always the same: "We cannot comment on this specific incident in order to protect the privacy of the individual in question" - Even though the "individual in question" is happily waiving their privacy in order to the story out there.

Re:"Privacy" (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608791)

That's PIPEDA (Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector) for you.

The thing to remember about PIPEDA, is that it works in favour of the individual in almost all cases. To sum up PIPEDA in a single sentence, you can't say shit about someone unless the individual gives explicit permission.

Scenario 1: Person gets arrested then released. Police cannot discuss the situation because the arrested person did not give the police explicit permission to do so.
Scenario 2: A drive containing 10,000 personal records goes missing. PIPEDA is then used to hand out massive fines to the company plus ensure appropriate remediation to the people involved.

Scenario 1 is heard of repeatedly because people want to hear about arrest stories. Scenario 2 most often never gets reported in the news (though it happens frequently).

Don't bash the good laws that actually serve their purpose (keeping in mind that both Google and Facebook were forced to change their privacy disclosures because of PIPEDA because there were massive holes in how they shared information).

Re:"Privacy" (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609243)

Don't bash the good laws that actually serve their purpose

Nobody was bashing a law, only the misuse of that law to avoid transparency.
The point that CohibaVancouver was making is that the authorities continue to use the "privacy" excuse even after the individuals involved have spoken out publicly. It's just another way of saying "no comment".

Re:"Privacy" (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609191)

In the government's defence though privacy is a little insane in Canada. My wife tried to pay our phone bill when I was away on business one time without internet access and, because I had not listed her on the account, they refused to let her pay it over the phone despite the fact that she knew the amount and was calling from the very phone associated with the account. When I got back I explained to them that whenever ANYONE calls up and wants to pay off any part of my phone bill that they should please let them!

Reuters lies (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44608545)

Greenwald has not threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities. Reuters made that up out of whole cloth, go read his actual words.

Re:Reuters lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608639)

The difference between Fox News and MSNBC exists only to sell more ads. They all lie; the truth shows up only in that it is often more convenient than a complete fabrication.

That being said, if you look like you're deliberately carrying purloined state secrets through someone's country, expecting not to be detained is kind of goofy. Let's see, you're going on behalf of your partner to someone who's claim to fame is leaking state secrets, in order to get those things from them, and then you get detained going through border security of one of the nations who's secrets are being revealed.

Re:Reuters lies (1)

Spad (470073) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608847)

No, expecting not to be detained is how it should be.

When did it become so normal for everyone to just dismiss these things is "well what did they expect would happen if they did something completely legal that someone doesn't like"?

Re:Reuters lies (4, Informative)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608903)

Re:Reuters lies (1)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609141)

If you are going to do something anyway then threatening to do that thing doesn't carry much weight. Just publish the dam stuff and be done with it.

Re:Reuters lies (5, Insightful)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609291)

Just publish the dam stuff and be done with it.

They are intentionally selectively releasing the data in order to catch the government in more lies. First the government says "we don't monitor Americans". Then the media releases proof that they do. Then the government says "OK, we do monitor, but we have oversight". Then the media releases proof the oversight is non-existent. This is more powerful than indiscriminately releasing it all at once, because it shows how willing the government is to lie about what it does.

I expect the remainder of the files to be released once all the lies that can be proven false are done with.

Re:Reuters lies (2, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608919)

Greenwald has not threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities. Reuters made that up out of whole cloth, go read his actual words.

Apparently ACs can lie as well. Greenwald not only said he will be more aggressive, but more or less directly threatened the UK.

Snowden leak journalist: Britain will 'regret' detaining partner at airport [nbcnews.com]

"I will be more aggressive in my reporting from now,” he told reporters in Portuguese at Rio de Janeiro’s airport where he met his boyfriend David Miranda who had flown from London to Brazil.

"I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where I'll now focus more," he said. "It'll backfire. I think they'll come to regret it."

"Nine hours, eh?" -Gitmo detainee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608625)

I'm sure if this wasn't a white British journalist parliament would be equally outraged about illegal detention. Sure.

Re:"Nine hours, eh?" -Gitmo detainee (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608743)

Actually, it was a gay, hispanic Brazilian who happens to be the husband of a white, male, British journalist. But carry on...

Re:"Nine hours, eh?" -Gitmo detainee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608925)

Fag is the word you are looking for. Cocksucker is acceptable as well.

Re:"Nine hours, eh?" -Gitmo detainee (1)

xaxa (988988) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608849)

I'm sure if this wasn't a white British journalist parliament would be equally outraged about illegal detention. Sure.

Erm, Guantanamo is in the US, and the UK has (in public, at least) asked for its closure.

David Miranda isn't white and British either. He's Brazilian.

Re:"Nine hours, eh?" -Gitmo detainee (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608961)

Erm, Guantanamo is in the US

No, no it isn't. Guantanamo is in Cuba, and the only reason it's there is because the US pushed the Platt Ammendment [wikipedia.org] into the Cuban Constitution against their will.

The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.

Guantanamo is actually a base the US keeps in Cuba against the will of the Cubans -- they view it as an occupation by a foreign government. It most certainly is not in the US -- they use it because it's outside of the US and they can argue that normal laws don't apply.

But don't pretend Guantanamo is physically on the US soil, or that the Cubans have any interest in keeping it there.

Can't wait ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608657)

I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.

From what I've seen of the news coverage of this, this is pretty egregious and probably somewhat indefensible.

This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.

Re:Can't wait ... (2)

Scutter (18425) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608699)

So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class. I wonder how I get myself classified as a journalist?

Re:Can't wait ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608739)

So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class.

Ideally, directly apply all of the laws they pass to them and their families first and see if they get it.

That they're now acting like it's a shock this law could be abused ... well, that's either posturing, or evidence they weren't listening.

But taking the partner of a journalist and detaining and interviewing based on terrorism laws should be blatant enough to make them notice -- they should be capable of noticing before this, but they never seem to be able to realize the stupidity of the laws they write.

Re:Can't wait ... (4, Funny)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608899)

So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class. I wonder how I get myself classified as a journalist?

Oh stop fussing. Innocent people have nothing to worry about.

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608701)

This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that we (USA) put him on the watch list just to screw with him. I'd be willing to bet a few more folks in his circle of friends are on the same list.

Re:Can't wait ... (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608845)

Laura Poitras, who also received the Snowden leaks, has had this exact experience. Her 2006 film, "My Country, My Country", about Iraqis living under American occupation earned her a spot on the terrorist watch list. Since 2006, she's been detained at the border around 40 times [democracynow.org] .

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609233)

I'm somewhat heartened that you've been posting the same kinds of comments for years and have recently started to attract serious mod points. Keep up the good work.

Re:Can't wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608859)

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that we (USA) put him on the watch list just to screw with him.

Thereby reaffirming that Americans are hypocritical douchebags who talk about freedoms and rights and then trample all over them every chance they get.

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608971)

If by "Americans" you mean "politicians."

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609039)

It's never just the politicians. They can't rule without a populace willing to submit to that rule. If Americans were truly interested in freedom and rights, the streets would already be filled with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Re:Can't wait ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609049)

"that Americans are hypocritical douchebags"

You will find, if you care to look, that an awful lot of us are very libertarian and seek to preserve constitutional protections of individual liberties and rights that the statist seeks to eradicate.

You look at the Supreme Court today. One justice moving in one direction or the other, issues these breathtaking laws that have affected the entirety of society with no recourse. We have the president of the United States brazenly, you know, rewriting laws and saying if Congress doesn't act, he will act. And then you have Congress writing these massive laws under the cover of dark, issuing them quickly on matters that they don't have any right to legislate about, and conferring enormous authority on this departments and agencies they create, delegating lawmaking authorities to the executive branch.

So, it is not really a representative republic. It's not really a federal republic. It is a not a really a constitutional republic. Because we're unmoored from the Constitution. And for 100 years, the progressive movement, the statists that is, have been chiseling away and chiseling away at the constitutional construct. This is why the government is involved in everything from selecting our toilets and our light bulbs and our automobiles and our toasters. Now they're in our health care. They're collecting all kinds of data on us.

So mind your thoughts Euroweenie, we are all fighting the same basic battle here. Wake yourself up and wake your neighbors, if the statist is allowed to rule this way unchecked it will only get worse. Time for some checking.

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609021)

NSA and friends are playing by their own ugly rules, which serve noone but them. The "Bourne" series is looking ever more realistic. We should consider ourselves fortunate that they choose to keep to the laws that they had put in place, and don't just shoot on sight anyone they don't like. Will we look back on this as the beginning of something very much worse? First they came for the journalists, and we said nothing ...

Re:Can't wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609203)

I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.

Perhaps he was just detained for flying while brown. Not that they'd ever admit to that, either.

Re:Can't wait ... (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609231)

well, apparently Miranda's trip was covered by the Guardian and he was bringing some of the stolen Snowden docs to and from Poitras in Germany. this is according to the NYT, quoting Greenwald himself.

so it's not like he was on vacation and getting harassed merely because his partner was embarrassing the US or something. ferrying stolen classified documents through the UK is likely to get you detained if they know what's going on.

likewise, Greenwald brags that some of the docs he got from Snowden includes information on how the UK secret service operates.

what did the guy expect?

That's what happens (3, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608681)

those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind

That's what happens when you write legislation with a specific problem in mind that you want a nice knee-jerk reaction for. Then people point out the issues or possible abuses and you say "but that's not what this is for". Dumbass, it's not what you wanted that matters, it's what you actually wrote down and made into law that counts.

What about his rights? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608697)

Did anyone read David Miranda's rights before they arrested him?

Re:What about his rights? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608835)

You have the right to be fabulous.

You have the right to be stripsearched because your gay lover is giving out state secrets.

You have the right to have a name that can be used in bad puns when said stripsearch is reported.

Re:What about his rights? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609121)

Did anyone read David Miranda's rights before they arrested him?

this happened in england so no miranda rights they may have some other equivalent IANAL and most certainly not a British lawyer or soliciter or whatever they are called there.

Slashdot I am Disappoint (2)

Squeebee (719115) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608781)

22 comments and not one joke about his Miranda Rights?

Re:Slashdot I am Disappoint (1)

Josef Meixner (1020161) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608927)

Perhaps because there are no "Miranda Rights" in Britain?

Re:Slashdot I am Disappoint (1)

Squeebee (719115) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608973)

You would let that get in the way of a perfectly good pun? ;)

Re:Slashdot I am Disappoint (1)

jittles (1613415) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608933)

22 comments and not one joke about his Miranda Rights?

Last I checked, Miranda Rights are a US thing, not a UK thing. I would also not be surprised if Miranda rights were limited at the US Border. I think you are required by law to answer certain specific questions about your origin and destination, and probably about your personal effects as well.

If you can't squash them, square them (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608787)

and if you can't square them, squash them. -- Harold Wilson (of the press)

Of Course Not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608819)

"those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind."

Meaning of course, a case of the kind where it got out that you were doing it and it garnered bad publicity.

It would be hilarious how often we are told power won't be abused then learn that it is in fact abused, if it wasn't so unnerving at the same time how little people seem to care. It's so easy for it to get swept under the rug in the minds of the majority of people, the only advantage here is that the person who was detained is associated with someone with the power to make it hurt. Otherwise, it's 15 minutes of PR and then back to the usual.

I can't answer that until I speak to my lawyer (3, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608863)

Did he spend the entire 7 hours saying, "I don't know how to answer that question until I speak to my lawyer"?

In the U.S., you could do that.

Unless the interrogators violate the Constitution, and they would never do such a thing.

Re:I can't answer that until I speak to my lawyer (2)

threaded (89367) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609185)

Under this, and several other pieces of legislation, he is not allowed access to a lawyer.

There should be a new law - UK Miranda Rights (3, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608869)

I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.

Re:There should be a new law - UK Miranda Rights (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609031)

I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.

There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.

Miranda's rights (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608875)

I think it was his mistake. He should have voice his Miranda's rights, to remain silent and not incriminate himself.

Miranda rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608887)

Maybe there was some mis-communication informing Mr. Miranda about his Miranda rights and it took couple hours to clear it up ?

Sophist's choice (5, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608893)

"'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'" demonstrating that pretending to be retarded is preferable to accepting responsibility for your actions when you're an MP

Re:Sophist's choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609179)

Pretending?

Think of the children! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44608937)

'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind'
Yeah, because broadly over-reaching laws never get used maliciously outside the intents of the lawmakers.

Seriously the world needs to step back and do three things:
a) Delete laws that impose behaviors for possession others (be it data, drugs, weapons or even kiddie porn), no assault crime has ever been committed by merely possessing these items.
b) Revise/replace laws to criminalize the behavior (creation/action) only to the action that imposes someones behavior on another (kidnapping, sexual assault, non-consent, theft) and do not criminalize behaviors where consent was given, or no physical/mental harm was imposed on another. (So as much as I'd love to see wall street people in jail for monetary damages, let's not waste the police or courts time going after wall street thugs and grannies torrenting files and treating them as the same thing.)
c) stop trying to "protect" kids... this is censorship and not protecting anyone. Put the blame where it belongs and hold parents 100% responsible for their children's behavior as long as they reside with the parents. The government has no business telling families what they can or can't teach or show their children. This is such a slippery slope when you start imposing state-controlled censorship on the public. Today "child porn" tomorrow "BDSM porn" next week "anyone who has a riding crop in a photo", next year, anything that can be used to whip people, like towels and belts.

You see what I'm getting at right? Data is only data, nobody was ever harmed by the act of seeing ones and zeros form a picture or text message. People need mental help if they're thinking those ones and zeros are compelling reasons to kill themselves or someone else, or are telling other ones and zeros to kill themselves.

In the case of the news article itself, this is no different than the Patriot Act in the USA. If you don't want to be intimidated by your government, quit electing morons into it. The USA is a bit of a lost cause and tends to take two steps forward and three steps back every time the party majority shifts.

Background (0)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,13 days | (#44608939)

This is becoming more like a suspect that kills in the open all witnesses because what could be discovered is far worse that the evident killing a bunch of people. And UK/US are playing that role, happy to breaking all international treaties, demanding other governments extraditions while they are refusing to extradite to those same governments people that did worse crimes, spying on 1st world countries governments to "protect from terrorism", and more evident lies to cover what they fear that could be released.

US is not a democracy [salon.com] , nor is interested in peace. And have several (most?) European countries in their pocket on this.

COINTELPRO is back, and how! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44609019)

Lets say we have an Agency who wants to control a sentiment about a specific topic.
Lets also say that the Agency has most communications that people have sent or received.

For each person, you could use sentiment analysis to analyze what they send and receive to figure out how they feel about the target topic. You could also build a database of possible small crime leads for that contact. Maybe they mentioned drugs or speeding on their social media page, maybe they angered their co-workers for some reason. Perhaps they use a file-sharing client or post on jihaddist websites.

The Agency can calculate the centrality of a particular sentiment using sentiment analysis on social networks. This would reveal those with the power to organize people into taking action.

Once the Agency has a list of these people, sorted from most likely to be a central communicator to least likely, they can then work on dismantling the trust of those in the network.

In order to dismantle the network, individuals must loose faith in their leaders. This can be done in a number of ways, most of them fairly simple to implement. Here are a few on the ones we have seen in the news, I'm sure there are many more:

Boom. A system to take out the subversives. All without people suspecting.

bullshit (5, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | 1 year,13 days | (#44609027)

those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind

Bullshit, fuck you, bullshit.

That is the biggest lie I have heard all week. This is exactly what this legislation is designed to do: Make it possible to utterly destroy the friends and family of anyone that dares speak out against the regime. Mr Miranda (how ironic is it that someone named Miranda had his rights so obviously trampled upon), is lucky to not have been secretly imprisoned. Everyone even remotely involved signing the order for his detainment should be jailed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>