UK Home Office Says Miranda's Detention 'Fully Justified,' Attacks Press And Public For Condoning Snowden's Leaks

from the where-were-you-when-the-government-told-you-to-go-fuck-yourself? dept

Tue, Aug 20th 2013 12:02pm — Tim Cushing

For all the claims that the nine-hour detention of David Miranda was going to be "looked into," the Home Office seems to have already arrived at its conclusion: completely justified.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. This is an ongoing police inquiry so will not comment on the specifics."

This is a rather chilling statement from the Home Office, one that implicitly declares inconvenient people to be terrorists. This, combined with Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger's account of GCHQ officials forcing him to destroy hard drives while telling him the "debate" was "over" and he could "stop writing," indicates the UK government is through playing defense.

The statement doesn't limit itself to attacking the press. It also attacks the public for supporting the Guardian's efforts.

Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

This is an ugly sentiment for a government to be pushing. It declares its critics to be enemies of the state, bedfellows of terrorists, and announces its intent to go on the offensive to rein in its detractors.

The UK government, along with the US government, has seen its constituents' trust eroding at a rapid pace in recent months. And, like the US government, it seems to have no interest in rebuilding it. It would rather write off the loss and blame its victims.

The law that was abused to detain Miranda was hardly "abused." The language itself is abusive, seeing as it leaves the definition of "terrorist" to the imaginations of police officials. America's laws relating to terrorism are easily abused as well, and additions like the "Insider Threat" program point to more antagonistic actions in the future from an angered administration.

This is a watershed moment. We knew it when Miranda was detained. This statement from the Home Office seals it.

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: alan rusbridger, david miranda, gchq, home office, teresa may, uk

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:05pm

Why, change your name to II Gestapo, it's more fitting, no?

Hyperbole and others may apply. Or not. Convoluted times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duke (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:06pm

If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that.
Except the law they used doesn't provide a framework for doing this. It only lets them question someone to work out whether or not they're involved with acts of terrorism, not to find out of they're in possession of classified information.

I have a feeling they may have to take some of this back, particularly now that Miranda has begun legal proceedings against them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:15pm
  
  Prediction
  That section of the statement quoted above is right in line with Orwell's prediction:
  
  "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face � forever."
  
  The "police" will justify any means to further the police state where everyone is safe, but no one is free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HappyBlogFriend (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:49pm
  
  Duke wrote:
  Except the law they used doesn't provide a framework for doing this. It only lets them question someone to work out whether or not they're involved with acts of terrorism, not to find out of they're in possession of classified information.
  Unfortunately, people of a certain mindset want the government to twist whatever powers it has in order to do what they think is right. They don't give a darn about abuse as long as it targets the right people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:10pm

Dear UK Home Office
Go fuck yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:11pm

I'm sure glad that it's worth stifling an entire news organization over some powerpoint presentations showing another government violating freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:12pm

Irony of it all
"Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

Those who oppose [Snowden and the NSA leaks] need to think about what they are condoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re: Irony of it all
  You're making the mistake of assuming rationality, when rationality was thrown out the window in 2001.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duke (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Irony of it all
    rationality was thrown out the window in 2001.
    You'd think so, but the law used by the UK police here was passed in 2000...
    
    I'm not sure rationality was ever a major factor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Irony of it all
      Rationality died when the wall fell in Berlin. Before the wall fell, the enemy was obvious and the spying was directed at clearly defined targets. Now, the spying has become a business who lived by nationalism and the protection of all that is dear to us which has later transformed to "providing sefety for the children, against pirates and against all bad people in the world". The pure-breed nationalism is too partisan in todays climate so it has been changed to a far more all-encompassing protecter of all that is good instead of a defender of all that is good. A nanny-state instead of a strong man state. None of the situations are desirable and it should be possible to lower the beeping funding to this destroyer of all that is good from the ancient times. Today, the types of surveillance CIA and FBI can muster should be plentyful...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony of it all
        "Before the wall fell, the enemy was obvious and the spying was directed at clearly defined targets"
        
        Ahhh, the good ool' days. When everyone hated the commies while singing kumbaya 'round the campfire. The smores tasted better and no one thought the Vietnam war was unjustified. Wasn't it grand? There was no illegal spying upon political targets, nor was there any vindictive assaults from power. What ever happened anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony of it all
        Watergate, anyone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony of it all
        Watergate was very mild compared to a lot of the other things that were going on back in the day. The current NSA scandal is mild compared to some of that stuff, too.
        
        Not to say that Watergate and the NSA scandals aren't very serious, but I think it's helpful to put things into perspective.
        
        (Also, I just have to acknowledge that I get that the AC was being sarcastic.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Irony of it all
  "Those who oppose [Snowden and the NSA leaks] need to think about what they are condoning."
  
  And the consequences of doing so.
  If you're represented by a politician who would support this type of thing, next election, change your representative.
  If you don't, they'll take the message that you're okay with this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wonky L, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Irony of it all
  Hailing from the USA, the last name is what strikes me as most ironic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AB, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:18pm

Wow! If this a true example of government thinking, then the terrorists won a greater victory then they could have ever imagined.

Personally, I find it terrifying that our freedoms have been reduced to levels previously only seen in the middle-east and third world dictatorships. At the same time, residents of those places are slowly gaining freedoms. It may not be long before our people are seeking refuge from our own governments.

Wait, that's already happening. So much for my famous hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ricebowl (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:25pm

But, wait:
Knowledge of the crimes*/unconstitutional behaviour committed by the NSA, in a foreign country helps terrorists in the UK? Why, what other laws, or mores, have you been teaming up to break?

I can't wait to hear what's next, if only that change might, after a painful interim, finally be enacted and implemented.

* I know they're 'legal,' but I'm pretty certain they shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:36pm

It is a chilling statement but not surprising in the slightest.

This is the same Home Office who think it is a good idea to send mobile billboards directed at illegal immigrants around London.

The same Home Office who thought the Draft Communication Bill was a good idea.

The same Home Office who have no idea how the Internet works and seem to have no understanding of what digital means in the dissemination of leaked documents.

I would expect nothing less from such an inept Home Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:37pm

Two posts earlier
Two posts earlier:

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.

This post:

Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

I've thought about it, and I'm going to keep right on condoning Miranda, Greenwald, and Snowden. The UK Home Office continues to earn my disgust, disapproval, and contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arthur (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:39pm

Now we know ...
If it wasn't clear before, now we know that, in the government's view, they are at war with us. We are the enemy they are fighting.

Now we know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G.I. Joe, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Now we know ...
  And knowing is half the battle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eponymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re: Now we know ...
  I don't think we are the enemy in that we are not their target upfront. What is happening is these administrations are revealing to us what they judge to be our polical limits in their eyes as more citizens come up to them or cross over. This means that the ordinary citizen is fine until they want to advocate for something counter to the elites, then they become another target based on their risk to the establishment. Essentially they're telling us to not rock the boat too much or they will punish us for it. This is really nothing new for the state was always willing to target disidents and others it didn't like. Look at Martin Lutherking Jr. as a case in point. The prediciment we now have as people is technology empowers us in many ways which the state doesn't approve and poses a problem for their rule, thus we all are drifting towards target status. Unless, that is, we are willing to live a completely sheepish and unengaged life to not register on their radar. The harsh reality is this isn't our problem in that we people shouldn't reign in our lives to suite that if the States needs or desires. This is the governments' problem for they exist to serve the people and these types of programs and behaviors are so obviously a breaking of that commitment!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:41pm

"from the where-were-you-when-the-government-told-you-to-go-fuck-yourself? dept"

LMFAO GG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:42pm

It isn't rocket surgery...
People who oppose this sort of action are not willing to condone government actions that are more dangerous to them than actions of those the government would classify as a terrorist.

This stance is self-correcting, if the group of people who are of this mindset happen to be wrong, then the size of this group will be decreased by terrorists. So if governments actually believed they were right, they wouldn't have to fight to suppress this mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigflot blarny quando floon, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:47pm

Maybe someone should tell them that 1984 is not a how-to guide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnjac (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:48pm

national security doesn't need protecting that is the problem
The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security

What does it mean to 'protect national security'? National security is what does the protection, not the object of protection.

This is the dangerous mindset, when your security apparatus goals become to protect itself. Anything counter to its views can then be seen as a legitimate threat, that justify any number of actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re: national security doesn't need protecting that is the problem
  What someone needs to explain to Mr. Home Office spokesman, and the UK and US governments is that most of us do not want, desire, or most importantly need the sort of "protection" these people are offering us.
  
  It's like the sort of "protection" that went something like "If you don't give us X dollars, something bad might happen to your business".
  
  I, like the founding fathers before me, intend to oppose this sort of "protection" and support people like Snowden at every opportunity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: national security doesn't need protecting that is the problem
  Yeah, it's a protection racket the public cannot opt out of. It reminds me of kung fu flicks where the thugs go around bullying and terrorizing the locals, threatening payment in exchange for "protection" ...or else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:19am
  
  Re: national security doesn't need protecting that is the problem
  it means protect the infrastructure that provides the nations security.
  
  Protect and Serve, on a police officers badge is not an instruction that you should protect and serve him/her.
  
  It's a statement of what they are (supposed) to do.
  It's not a mindset it's a statement, using words and everything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christenson, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:51pm

Watergate
We are at a crisis. The leadership has no credibility left. Cassandra sees Obama resigning by the end of the year, a new UK government quite shortly.

The problem, in a nutshell, is how to make individuals within the government accountable for their actions without completely paralyzing the government. Terrorist is a label that should have direct consequences for the labeller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re: Watergate
  Who is Cassandra?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Watergate
    A mythical girl who was able to tell the future.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Watergate
      Technically, Casandra heard the future, she didn't see it. But that sentence would have looked much weirder beginning with "Cassandra hears...".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Watergate
  Simple answer...every single MP has to have a website where they PUBLICLY post anything they voted for/against.
  Make the website info permanent and not subject to 'debate'.
  A simple "VOTED YES on XXXXXXXX bill" and leave researching what that bill is to the public. (no misleading URLs)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BernardoVerda (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 10:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Watergate
    That most likely will only exacerbate-the media/PR battles, in which diligent, responsibly-minded politicians are reduced to explaining "I was actually for it, before I was against it."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:27am
  
  Re: Watergate
  " Terrorist is a label that should have direct consequences for the labeller."
  
  ?? Such as ?
  
  So if you call and act or terror done by someone a terrorist, there should be a direct consequence to you ?
  
  Or do you just want to deny acts of terror simply do not exist ?
  
  We all know being investigated as a terrorist does not make you a terrorist, no more than being investigated for murder makes you the murderer !
  
  Just as being suspected of something does not mean you did it, but if you did then being a suspect should be assumed !
  
  Maranda was not considered himself a terrorist, it was consider he could of had on his possession stolen information that may aid terrorist groups.
  
  Snowden claim he had ALOT of documents, from the NSA who try to detect terrorist plans. So there is a fair assumption that this person (making a film about Snowden and friends with the reporter) is justified in at least their eyes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 12:53pm

Notice it's a unamed 'spokesman' making the threat. Ask Cameron if he backs the threat, ask William 'every Brit is a potential terrorist' Hague, if he backs that threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:30am
  
  Re:
  unnamed just means not really a statement at all, it could of been off the post man for all you know, or can confirm.
  
  It's just a great way to say something you would have liked them to say, but don't really have.
  
  "an unnamed source' Yea right !!!! You're mother in law's dog ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OnlyOneEyeOpen (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

Unraveling slower than I'd projected
After 2004, and the Bush 'Re-election', I realized this was coming. The UK and the US have been hand in hand with major policy changes for some time, and it was a natural extension of the perversion of the 'Patriot Act' that set this precedent. I imagined six years before the uniformly corrupt and utterly psychotic union of the banks and the US Congress manged to plunge the world into global war or anarchy. I was a little off on that, but it seems their getting back on track now.

Since the Americans are too weak and stupid to police their own governing bodies, that burden falls on the UK. If neither of them do it in the next three years, then that's the ball game, the center cannot hold blah blah blah.

The NSA scandal (which is really the tip of the iceburg, when you start doing a little research) is just a signpost. Unrestrained corruption and greed lead only to total economic collapse. Iceland at least had the good sense to imprison their corrupt bank officials. It is evident that the populations of both the United Kingdom and the United States are simply too weak willed to do anything but roll over and bare their collective throats. These measure the two governments are enacting are frankly unnecessary. The 2004 Presidential election proved beyond doubt that the citizens of the US will do absolutely nothing to oppose the corruption of their government regardless of the severity of the crime. Their just too weak and complacent.

They'll allow anything to be done to anyone in their name as long as they have Welfare, Reality TV, and the assurance that putting a magnetic sticker on their moronic vehicle is an honest contribution to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: Unraveling slower than I'd projected
  are you saying the might of the Republican's with their millions of dollars cannot find a single lie from Obama to have him impeached ?
  
  Kind of tells you something right ??? !!!!!
  
  Look at what they impeached Clinton with !!! and you are saying he's evil, super corrupt !! and yet no action !!!! or do you think the Republicans are letting him 'slide' ??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:09pm

'Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning'

those people are definitely thinking what NOT to condone and that is another government going down the same road as the USA, throwing freedom and privacy out the window in order to set up another Police State! the UK is now nothing other than a smaller version of the USA, where the people dont matter, freedom doesn't matter, privacy doesn't matter, the only thing that does is constant and total surveillance. the UK has got a very dangerous pair in the top jobs. both are complete egotistical megalomaniacs and they are going to destroy the UK, simply because they want to follow in the footsteps of the USA. with eyes and ears in the EU, the UK can hand any and all information over to the US whenever it needs to. Cameron reckons there will be a vote whether to stay in the EU or not. no one is going to know the true results, if the vote ever happens, because he will want to stay in, just to continue his lap dog role!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re:
  Yes but the rest of the EU is currently debating whether or not to simply kick the UK out of the EU due to spying on those supposed to be our allies.
  Could be Cameron's 'excuse' to shut the UK borders and try to stop 'undesirables'(journalists) from leaving the country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Claire Rand, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, they are more concerned about the UK leaving (won;t happen, won;t be allowed to happen either) as we are one of the few countries that pay more into th EU than we take out. If it was the other way round we would have been kicked out by now
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  It is important to the US that the UK remain it's little dagger at the heart of the EU. It's up to the British to decide if the quisling life is the one for them.
  
  The UK outside of the EU would be useless to the US, the UK inside the EU wholeheartedly would also be useless to the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:20pm

British Home Office obviously took the same class
on sensitivity to public opinion as the Obama administration.

I'm assuming these people aren't elected, yes? Only appointed officials could be so uncaring about public opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:31pm

It seems like they firmly believe that the attention spans of their citizens will cause them to move on if they just weather the initial storm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re:
  Sadly that's basically what happened with the Manning leaks, it was all tossed out there and the fallout was severe, but brief. With the Snowden leaks though they've learned their lesson, little bits over time, so the storm starts out small, but grows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    when is it going to start ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HappyBlogFriend (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:56pm
  
  Jeremy 2020 wrote:
  It seems like they firmly believe that the attention spans of their citizens will cause them to move on if they just weather the initial storm.
  The government surveillance chronicle drops out of the news a few days after every revelation, so weathering the storm would appear to be a viable strategy for them. Making boneheaded moves like this, however, is definitely not part of that strategy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:32pm

about on par with the investigation into whether what GCHQ was doing was legal or not!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:32pm

This is nothing more then a terrorist act.
So what can I "simple joe" do?
Report the NSA, UK Home Office, et al. as a terrorist organisation? To whom, the UN?
This is so troubling and I don't know what we can do. Protest on the street, writing letters, elections it is all so pointless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:40pm

Welcome to the new democracy: where embarassing the government is the same as aiding terrorists. Enjoy your stay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:04pm

These two governments are out of control. They do not represent the people by any means. This one has the makings of a global scandal with quite a few governments globally co-operating against the very charters that give these governments the consent to govern by their people.

Here in I suspect is the real reason behind the panic to rush to do something. These two governments are at the heart of doing things they know their people do not want, their laws specifically forbid, and they have intentionally hidden it to prevent it from being known. The actions have reached a point that now they are being revealed have their citizens just shy of being up in arms over it. England in this respect is lucky in that their populace isn't armed.

There are already calls for major changes and proof beyond doubt that the populace has been lied to. That they are held to one standard while those with the approval of the present government heads are not. That is not law, not justice, and not right.

This looks like it is going to get ugly before it gets better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  "These two governments "
  
  Look around, there are more ... everywhere
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Divide by Zero (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:14pm

Hmm. I really do think it is about time for the general citizenry to start enacting their own anti terror laws & start pulling down a few governments. They forget that the only reason they are there is because we let them be there. We can change that state of affairs pretty quickly, should we choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PopeRatzo (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:21pm

Missing the Point
The government officials in the UK and US still haven't caught on that the issue of ubiquitous surveillance is going to be the defining issue of this decade. They're fighting a war from the early 2000s and the rest of us have moved on.

It's not showing up in the media or even the polls yet, but there is going to be a massive shift in public perception of government officials who believe it's OK to violate the civil and human rights of individuals in order to feed their security apparatus.

The detention of Mr Miranda had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with a petulant government's blind rage. They still think that all they have to do is say "terrorism" and everybody will just quiet down. I think more and more people are saying, "We'll take our chances with the terrorists. Just get your goddamn hands off of our human and civil rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:40pm

UK Home Office's statement reeks of corruption and totalitarianism. A sad day for democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:41pm

AKA: What we perceive as Terrorism (ie anything we don't like) is more important than ensuring a free society.
Thanks,
UK Gov (*Stasi salute)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:21pm

Or what?
Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning, or what? What will the state do if after thinking about this I, and others, still condone the likes of Snowden, will we face potential harassment also for our approval? It's obvious that this is their attempt to draw a line in the sand, but has the UK administration itself thought through how all of its actions may result. In other words are they ready to really bring this fight to the people; to act against their own citizens while claiming to be doing this to help these same citizens. This is psychotic to say the least!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:40pm
  
  Re: Or what?
  What will they do? Well, that should be obvious.
  
  They spy on everything. They know everything. They can look up everyplace you've been, hear everything you've said over the phone, read every letter and email you've ever sent or received.
  
  Blackmail would be very, very easy for them. And, really, considering that they're currently trying to shut down newspapers that report news they don't like, do you really think they'll pass up any possible source of power over people?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:40am
    
    Re: Re: Or what?
    "
    Blackmail would be very, very easy for them."
    
    not if you don't have any thing to be blackmailed for !!! then I would expect it to be very hard.
    
    what do you do that would allow someone to blackmail you ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BernardoVerda (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 10:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Or what?
      "Give me but a half dozen lines from the hand of the most honest of men -- and I shall find something therein by which to hang him."
      
      -- Cardinal Richelieu
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:08pm

UK is fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:12pm

Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

That is easy. We are condoning freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  "That is easy. We are condoning freedom."
  
  Freedom to do what ??
  
  Freedom to conduct acts of terror ? or freedom to carry stolen documents ?
  
  Freedom from investigation ? Freedom from prison ? Freedom to steal ?
  
  I don't condone your freedom to raid my fridge !!!! or your freedom to sleep with my wife !!
  
  I do condone a lot of freedoms for you, but more not so much... I don't want a terrorist to be free to hijack an aircraft of bomb a building.
  
  you might want to think about what you are condoning !!!! (where have I heard that before!!)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:45pm

This reminds me of something.
I remember that Britannia had some issues about respecting human rights before. In fact, they were so egregious that some of us decided to address these abuses into a charter that was amended to our new nation's constitution.

Something about forming a more perfect union maybe?

Oh well. Doesn't matter much now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:38pm

Condoning freedom of speech
I guess the British government would rather have all those Murdoch papers with the raunchy girlie centerfolds reporting the news than a real newspaper, which prints facts.

I'm glad that I'm not a British citizen, but I'm not exactly proud of the American political apparatus, because if they had their druthers, they'd have said the same thing, and truly believe it-but that's not to say they don't privately approve of the statement, either.

Remember, the US was probably the instigator and motivator for this incident.

We condone freedom of speech, a free press and information which isn't always to the government's pleasure.

What the government thinks is not any of my concern.

They can go fuck themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
midofo (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:26pm

But it's only metadata
The way I am coming to think of it, Snowden has only released the "metadata".
Compared to Manning who released the "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 9:38pm

Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

What, accountability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:20pm

Definitions
"The language itself is abusive, seeing as it leaves the definition of "terrorist" to the imaginations of police officials

That's incorrect: although the definition of "terrorist" in Section 7 is very generic (and herein lies the real problem), Section 1 defines an act of terrorism in more details and therefore helps the definition. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:54am
  
  Re: Definitions
  very good and complete definition..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:48pm

You better think
Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

What, rule of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ashok pai, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:51pm

why stop here ?
USA/ UK have for long opposed china/ russia for being oppressive, spying over their citizens. so, what separates them ? they did pretty much the exact same thing. USA is much worse, it's got dirt on every person from around the world. I for one do not know how USA/ UK will carry on with their "democracy" message with a straight face.

the duplicity is breath taking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:51pm

Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning
Consulting a great philosopher:
You better think (think) think about what you're trying to do to me
Think (think, think), let your mind go, let yourself be free

Let's go back, let's go back, let's go way on back when
I didn't even know you, you couldn't too much more than ten
I ain't no psychiatrist, I ain't no doctor with degrees
It don't take too much high IQ's to see what you're doing to me

You better think (think) think about what you're trying to do to me
Yeah, think (think, think) let your mind go, let yourself be free

Oh freedom (freedom), freedom (freedom), freedom, yeah freedom
Freedom (freedom), freedom (freedom), freedom, ooh freedom

[etc.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JamesF (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 1:51am

I�d like to respond to whoever at the home office wrote this statement. You seem to be under the impression that people object to this action because they condone terrorism. This could not be further from the truth. They are objecting because they hate terrorism, especially when it�s being perpetrated by their own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dadtaxi, 21 Aug 2013 @ 3:13am

'The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate'

Himmm, is that realy the same as-

"Our assessment is that the use of the power in this case was legally and procedurally sound.

Only in government doublespeak and spin does 'necessary' and 'proportionate' mean 'legal' and 'procedurally sound'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ColinCowpat (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 3:21am

Junior Minister
The News this morning mentioned that a specific junior minister had requested the destruction of storage media at the Guardian. If so, we're getting closer to the top. A Junior Minister is normally a bag carrier for the Ministers instructions, but who can be thrown under a bus as an escape route for their boss if things go pear shaped. So, I don't think it will take Brain of Britain to work out the definitive source of the command...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 11:32pm

1984 is here. And I think just about every other dystopian sci-fi prediction is waiting right around the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]