White House Says It Had 'No Role' In UK Detention Of David Miranda, But Did Have A 'Heads Up'
from the and-what-did-it-say-in-response? dept
The White House has now come out with a statement insisting that it had no role in the detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, but did say that UK intelligence gave the US "a heads up" that it "might" happen. Of course, ironically named White House spokesperson Josh Earnest also refused to say whether the US approved or disapproved of the detention.Meanwhile, it's been noted by some that Miranda was, in fact, carrying a USB key that contained some relevant information, but Greenwald has said that he's not worried at all about it, because the data was encrypted:
"We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry – not just for the NSA stories," says Greenwald via email. "So everything he had – for his personal use and everything else – was heavily encrypted, and I'm not worried at all that they can break that."Either way, under the rules in the UK, they could only detain Miranda to determine if he was involved in terrorist activities. Doing investigative journalism is not a terrorist activity unless you're an authoritarian police state. Either way, it really does appear that this abuse of power is likely to backfire big time on the UK (and the US, whatever its role). It's unlikely that it did anything to help stop the dissemination of this kind of information, but did reveal the thuggish tactics and police-state mentality by the UK government.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david miranda, encryption, glenn greenwald, journalism, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When you have to speak out to assure people you didn't do something then there are two possible interpretations:
1- You did/were related to it.
2- Your credibility is so low that people will automatically assume you did it.
Either way people will assume they were responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'White House claims it has nothing to do with attempted intimidation of press'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would look pretty stupid in court though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Role
No role? Clearly they had at least the "we were told it may happen" role going. If someone tells me they are going to commit an act of terrorism, or commit a serious crime, or violate someone's civil rights, is not doing anything about it "no role"? If so, I think the NSA has clearly thrown out a net that is WAY too big.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We won't illegally detain the partner of a journalist who's engaged in acts we disagree with."
"We won't abuse the power entrusted to us."
SSDD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dang it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dang it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Considering how this was handled, I highly doubt that they care how it would look. What's important to them is that they sent a message to other journalists that aiding those who embarrass the government will be punished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dang it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are PDAs but c'mon...
Yes, it's vulgar, but so's the incident.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In related news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thuggish Police State Tactics in the UK
Hello? This headline from 2012, for example: "PM apologises for MI5's role in murder of Ulster lawyer." For the past 4 decades the UK has shown "thuggish" tactics in northern Ireland. Killing the accused's lawyers was par for the course in 1989. Not much has changed really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This tells us that they are living 20 years in the past. A time when this harassment would have gone unnoticed in the news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dang it
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm, I'd paid no attention, BUT this raises a point:
And then if you ask WHY, one possibility is that it yet again boosts Greenwald into spotlight, even though he's revealed almost nothing that I didn't know years ago, and in this instance reveals even less, only hints that he has secrets on a thumb drive.
So IF "they" were trying to enhance Greenwald's credibility, this looks quite like a stunt. -- And that is yet again consistent with limited hangout psyop, where Greenwald is fed some minor information that "they" want revealed in order to acquaint populace with actualities, and thereby increase the actual effect, not at lessen it.
Just sayin'. Don't fall for the obvious story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is, undoubtedly, what he means. He's no newbie to these sorts of things, and certainly is aware that no encryption short of OTPs is uncrackable in an absolute sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anyone that believes this statement must be employed by the USG and under 'A Gag Order'!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Strong words for someone who a few months ago didn't even use PGP. Of course I have every reason to believe he's made every precaution possible to protect his data and has received immeasurable help with this task. Still, with the most powerful spy agency at your virtual door all it takes is a single mistake to be your undoing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you smell that?
No sheep?
Or is it cow?
Wait, I know what that is, it's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Foot shot I'd say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Least untruthful statement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It was quite willing to push other countries to deny the Bolivian President and his plane air space to fly through. Those that allow turned out to be a trap of you stay until you are searched. I have to ask were that the Russian President, if you believe the same would have happened?
Yet here it is again, this willingness to basically deny the right of freedom merely because 'we think we should' and will find a way to justify it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of course, that still leave the door open for rubber-hose decryption (otherwise known as 'Tell us the key or we'll keep beating you with this rubber hose.'). Which they're half a step away from using if they're willing to detain people only tangentially related to the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I hear this claimed a lot (especially by crypto companies), but it's really very misleading. All commonly used crypto algorithms can be broken in a handful of years, worst case, by anyone who has a moderately sized budget.
Those "heat death of the universe" estimates are assuming naive brute-force encryption. In the real world, that is not how it's done.
That said, encryption is useful and necessary -- but it won't keep your secrets forever if someone wants to crack it badly enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So there was no spying on an American Citizen. In that respect it would seem all is hunkey dory.
As mentioned below, they will get just the next story, when they finally break the encryption, which might be in time to verify it against the published article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tipping point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just like locks. They are there to help keep honest people honest. If someone wants to get in, they will. More or better locks just take longer.
What does that say about folks who try to break encryption?
One supposes that there is some legitimate use for breaking encryption. How should that line be defined?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They like to solve puzzles -- just like most of the people who learn how to pick locks.
There are many legitimate reasons to break encryption (or pick locks). Have you ever lost your key?
I don't think it's necessary to define a "line" as such. Breaking encryption is not, in itself, a big deal. The big deal is what happens after the encryption is broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Flash Drive?
Use a micro-SD card. They're the size of a Chiclet and can easily be concealed. If you have an electric razor, pop open the case (on the razor, not the carrying case) and slip the card inside. The top edge of most pants forms a hollow tube around the top (my mother used to put elastic in there to avoid using a belt), so a small slit would allow the card to be slipped in there and should be undetectable to anything less than a strip search. Sneakers with thick rubber soles could probably be slit on the side to allow the card to be slipped in, and should be just about invisible to the naked eye. You could even wrap it in plastic and hide it in your cheek. No, your mouth cheek, although I suppose the other would work too.
True, no hiding place is truly safe if they're determined to find something on you, but it's better than just having a flash drive in your pocket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. And it brings up motive. Is it someone trying to open bank accounts, or someone looking for critical business information, or someone tearing open an article that might not look favorably on some government official, or are they opening the pictures Auntie took of the kids over summer vacation at the beach?
I think it is in the motive area that the line might be needed. Someone put a lock on that file for a reason. What reason might one have that is legitimate to unlock that file? Where might that line be drawn?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=all& ;_r=0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Flash Drive?
I think it is a reasonable tactic, in this context, to carry an encrypted flash drive. The information being transferred between Poitras and Greenwald could have been sent over the Internet with the same encryption. They would have to assume a government could have copied it without being able to show evidence of that. Using a courier, they force the government to show it's hand. If the information was not taken then they don't have to worry about possible cryptographic weaknesses. Poitras can still send Greenwald the information, but now the world knows that the UK/U.S. is harassing journalists.
If you want to keep, not only your information confidential, but the fact that your communicating at all confidential, then use steganography. This is a bit harder when the spies already know the parties at both ends of a potential conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Demanding he provide the encryption keys would likely be useless as odds are good he wouldn't have the keys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cant be decrypted ??
Called 'cribs', which they will already have, is this Miranda person a 'reporter' ?? or a 'normal citizen' just 'friends' of a reporter ?
Plus, UK press is actually quite unpopular with citizens of the UK and not really looked up too or trusted.
There simply wont be too many tears about this, it's simply paybacks for the spying, cheating and lying the UK press is so well known for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Flash Drive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
receiving stolen goods, conspiracy
After one of the charge against snowden is theft, there is a US/UK extradition agreement as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple questions
Simple: someone told them. Someone tracked his movements, and then when he hit UK airspace, they were waiting.
They knew who he was, where he was headed, where he visited, and who he was a partner of.
Guess someone or some agency was watching his every move.
Want to bet that the 'someone' or agency was American?
Too easy a bet to win-sorry-but just as scary.
Because he isn't a public figure, or wasn't. He was a private person, flying a public airline, for personal reasons. I'd never heard of him, and I'm sure that most people hadn't.
That's what the UK authorities were hoping-and that the matter would just fade out.
Unfortunately they underestimated their opponent. You don't do that to the partner of one of the world's most prominent journalists and expect them to just take it in the chin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We've already learned that meanings of words aren't what most of us know in the English language. This has come up several times in public addresses and congressional testimony. The old, 'This program doesn't do that' but no word of the other program that does.
The US says it didn't order David's arrest. It doesn't say they were tracking him, or any mention of knowing what he was doing was brought up. Still someone had to know, this didn't just happen out of the blue.
Add this happenstance to the grounding of the Bolivian President's plane until it was searched. That is a diplomatic no no. Heads of state have diplomatic immunity.
Add to it, that the Guardian was forced to destroy hard drives. It sure doesn't sound like the US has no involvement in this on the surface.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmm, I'd paid no attention, BUT this raises a point:
I suspect you never finished high school but I can't be certain. We all suspected the gov't was spying on us now we can be certain. Do you comprehend the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dang it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do you smell that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand the math involved here. To put it very simply, Moore's law has held pretty steady at doubling compute power (give or take) at 18 months to 2 years. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say we can lower that to 1 year.
Q: What would a secure algorithm need to do to keep up with a doubling of computer power every year?
A: Add single bit to the key length each year. Instead of a 256-bit key, you'd need a 257-bit key.
Today, assume a 256-bit key encrypted with algorithm X takes 1 year to brute force.
A 512-bit key encrypted with the same algorithm will take the same amount of time (1 year) to brute force *over*250*years*from*now assuming yearly doubling of compute power.
For any serious modern crypto system, key lengths are much longer, and the algorithms are more robust.
Those "heat death of the universe" estimates are assuming naive brute-force encryption. In the real world, that is not how it's done.
And that's specifically why I qualified that statement with "so long as the algorithm is secure" - because modern techniques are to find a weakness in the algorithm or implementation of the system. If a flaw is discovered in the algorithm, all bets are off. If a flaw is discovered in the implementation, all bets are off (example: Android bitcoin wallet using stupid method to generate random numbers, story last week).
If you want a good example of the difference between attacking an algorithm, and attacking the implementation, head over to ArsTechnica and read up on their password cracking stories. All of that is attacking the implementation of how passwords are stored, and how people choose passwords. And yet, with the big password disclosures, there are still some fraction of the lists that remain uncracked - because those passwords cannot be predicted using the methods and would still take absurdly long lengths of time to crack trying every possibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Investigative Journalism
**Or how about the passing on of data obtained illegally of state secrets without authority or clearance?
**And to whom that information can be recklessly passed on to unknowns, would be a potential flag if I were just curious, let alone trying to keep the free world safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Researchers using specialized machines have proven that it is feasible to break almost every commonly used encryption there is in a reasonable amount of time (a few years). It's expensive, which means that you'd have to be very special for someone to put the effort in, but it is feasible.
Also, this news that it's even easier than thought before.
Encryption is powerful and everyone should be using it. I am very pro-encryption. But I think people tend to feel more secure than is warranted when they begin to use it. Encryption is no panacea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Passwords
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Flash Drive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]