Orders To Destroy Guardian Hard Drives Came Directly From PM David Cameron

from the and-now-the-nation-is-more-secure-than-ever! dept

Thu, Aug 22nd 2013 8:46am — Tim Cushing

More details continue to emerge on the UK government's two recent anti-journalist actions. The Guardian reports that the order to (pointlessly) smash up Guardian hardware came from the top.

A spokesman for Clegg made clear that Heywood was acting on the authority of both the prime minister and his deputy. The spokesman said: "We understand the concerns about recent events, particularly around issues of freedom of the press and civil liberties. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is already looking into the circumstances around the detention of David Miranda and we will wait to see his findings.

"On the specific issue of records held by the Guardian, the deputy prime minister thought it was reasonable for the cabinet secretary to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands.

"The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish, whilst taking the necessary steps to safeguard security.

"It was agreed to on the understanding that the purpose of the destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles about the issue, but would help as a precautionary measure to protect lives and security."

So, let's get this straight. The UK government "understands the concerns" about its recent actions, but apparently wouldn't change a thing if it had to do it all over again.

The usual justification presents itself repeatedly: security uber alles.

The government forced (statement says "request" but we know how these things work) the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing content that was "a serious threat to national security" but still existed elsewhere. The government knew this and still forced the issue and then has the temerity to claim the pointless show of force was about "safeguarding security."

Look at how many times that empty word shows up in this brief statement.

"...serious threat to national security…"

"...taking the necessary steps to safeguard security…"

"...a precautionary measure to protect lives and security…"

None of this was "necessary" or "precautionary." It did nothing. The data that might "threaten national security" is still out there. The government knows because its own defensive statement says the action "wouldn't impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles." It was pure muscle-flexing. This security-heavy statement pretty much says precisely that while expending many more words.

There's also this:

The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action.

Awesome. The government would rather throw its weight around than pursue any sort of process that might have allowed the Guardian to dispute the order. How telling. How utterly and vilely telling. Of course the government felt this "approach" was "preferable." Screw the adversarial process. We've got the nation's "security" at stake. Everything else is secondary, including the public's outdated ideals about a free press and a government willing to respect the rights of its citizens.

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 cameron, ed snowden, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, hard drive, the guardian

63 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 7:59am

I wonder if the Guardian could have resisted and pursued the legal route. It would be a very interesting case and a kind of thermometer of how bad censorship and lack of freedom is in the UK. I wonder if they thought about it.

Cameron and Obama should nuke the entirety of Afghanistan, Iran and whatever country they think that hosts terrorists to ensure "national security", right? After all, it's being used to justify all sorts of Human Rights violations, what's a little genocide to protect our precious security? I'm sure they'd get the Nazi Seal of Approval.

Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mrong (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  I'm guessing it was just easier to let them break a single hard drive which in no way contained the only copy of whatever data they had. I mean I make pretty reliable backups and most of my data is pictures of my cat. So I imagine if I had some super secret documents I'd probably make a backup before going through customs.
  
  But yes it would have been, though I don't blame them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Here in Germany, in the Late 30ies, where similar Things going on.
    
    Enabling Act (German: Erm�chtigungsgesetz)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd probably do exactly what the Guardian did: destroy the hard drives, knowing full well I had offsite backups. No harm done (reporting can continue) and it gives a nifty new news story. It was a nice bit of Judo.
    
    This is all about picking your battles.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JH, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  It's been suggested the Guardian were given a formal direction under section 8(9) of the Official Secrets Act.
  (Carl Gardner's blog)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Noah Callaway, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  Alan Rusbridger (editor in chief of The Guardian) has said that a prolonged legal challenge would have impacted their reporting more than destroying the hard-drives. They chose to comply with the "slightly pointless task" because they had other copies and it wouldn't really affect their reporting.
  
  http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/20/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-nsa
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  I wonder if the Guardian could have resisted and pursued the legal route. It would be a very interesting case and a kind of thermometer of how bad censorship and lack of freedom is in the UK. I wonder if they thought about it.
  
  Yes, they said they thought about it, but realized going the legal route would have resulted in injunctions that blocked them from reporting -- so doing the totally symbolic thing of destroying the hard drive, continuing to report from NY, and then talking about the destruction seemed more effective. Probably true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Indeed. If you think about it they can still pursue the legal route without risking any injunction. I suppose that it's hard for any of us without seeing exactly how the things happened.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes but the governments next step was to demand that UK newspapers "re-word" certain upcoming pro-snowden articles..again on threat of legal action, and again, orders coming directly from David Cameron and Nick Clegg......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Howard (profile), 26 Aug 2013 @ 2:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do they have to transmit the leaked documents through the internet?
    
    Maybe this is a ploy to find out what he took from the NSA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HaveSomeIntegrity, 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  If the Gaurdian fought a legal battle on this, all of the data would need to be handed over to the courts to rule on. The government would LOVE this to be the case, so they could push back the dates of the ruling for years, meanwhile the Gaurdian wouldn't be allowed to report further on any data surrended, even if it was simply a copy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ginger_baz, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  the issue is, should they have taken the legal route the judge would have slapped an injunction on reporting it prior to the case being resolved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hkdharmon (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  In an interview, the editor of the paper said they preferred staying out of court because the court could have decided that all the data was secret and they would not be allowed to even use the copies. That is, the judge could have ordered him to not discuss the data, as the UK does not have a 1st Amendment like the US. He said he actually preferred having the hard drive destroyed as it did not keep him from reporting from elsewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- YouareaHypocrites, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  The reason why the world keep justifying wars is because people like you.
  
  Take a little break and analyze what would happen if the USA would used nuclear power.
  
  1. If you used Nuke-clear power countries like China and Russia would automatically counter attack.
  
  2. By nuking any country you not only destroy the land with radio active isotopes but the cloud would travel the globe (and guess what you would end up with terminal cancer and die 20 year later).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Please turn your sarcasm detector on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Melly, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:14pm
  
  Response to: Ninja on Aug 22nd, 2013 @ 7:59am
  The Guardian editor actually addressed that-he said if they pursued it legally it would preclude them from continuing to publish the info. Since he knew there were backup, he authorized the destruction of the computers in London. That's rather wise, at least IMHO. Now the whole world sees what Cameron is capable of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  barometer
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 8:24am

Cameron: That's a nice little newspaper you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

Guardian: Umm ok?

Cameron: Fall on your... ah, I mean destroy your hard drives.

Guardian: But we are using them.

Cameron: I could get a court order but if I have to do that I'll take everything, now be a good chap and destroy your hard drives.

Guardian: done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  You missed out the best part!
  
  Cameron: Oh, Barry, I love you!
  
  Guardian: Well, they're idiots, so we may as well play our part in this farce.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 8:54am

"...serious threat to national security�"
"...taking the necessary steps to safeguard security�"
"...a precautionary measure to protect lives and security�"

One minor point. Not once, has the all encompassing surveillance of the US or UK, been shown to have stopped an actual plot, saved a life, or safeguard security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zos (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  well, the FBI have stopped lots of plots. of course they were all plots invented and enabled by the FBI, but still. 'merica.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adrian Monk, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Strange that. A quick Google brings up this article.
  Do your research.
  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-bomber-plots-school-massacre-1487471
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "It is said that investigating police found amounts of sulphur and potassium nitrate which are some of the main ingredients needed to make gunpowder."
    
    Notice the word "amounts"..no specifics so it could be anything from kilograms to nanograms.
    Hell the sulphur and potassium nitrate could have come from a poorly cleaned toilet based solely from that article.
    
    Secondly you'll notice how child-abuse gets lumped into the mix...well if they don't believe us about terrorists anymore perhaps some paedophilia shoved in there will help?
    
    Finally, its the Daily Mirror...which once ran a picture of an action man doll claiming it was a soldier that had been kidnapped whilst on duty in Iraq (so not the most believable source for anything).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2013 @ 5:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Even if it were true there is a point missed: this is not the best way to prevent 'terrorism'. People should not feel the need commit these acts instead of being scared into compliance with white-collar criminals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Daily Mirror != research
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FG, 22 Aug 2013 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Well, we don't necessarily know that. That doesn't make any of this any less horrifying, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wordsdontmatter, 23 Aug 2013 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  I think plot was the keyword, and they seem to be doing that quite openly and well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
antymat, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:05am

Porn? Nay...
Now Britons should know what are the "porn filters" needed for. But they will continue saying "Baaa, baaa".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- josh.li, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Porn? Nay...
  It's our PM who wants these moronic porn filters, not the people. We don't say "baaa", we say "What the fuck are you on Dave?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - antymat, 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:11am
    
    Re: Re: Porn? Nay...
    I cannot see many protests. No-one marching on the streets. I rather see indifference. And if you ask, what he is on - well, good riddance, soon you'll be asking only government-approved questions. Or be branded "a terrorist helper" and filtered out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:09am

the UK appears to be doing similar to the US, creating a society that is afraid of it's government. a society that doesn't have a government that wants to help and promote the people and the country but one that revolves around fear. how can any country that is supposed to be based on democracy, on privacy and most importantly, on freedom, lose it's way so much and so fast? forcing a reporting service like this is ridiculous! it shows it has things to hide, it shows that it has been up to no good and it shows it wants those things to remain out of the peoples' knowledge. when the statement came out about anyone that was against the detaining of Miranda was condoning terrorism, it's trying to justify the whole disgraceful debacle. i thought the UK had more balls than this and could stand on it's own. seems i was wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:10am

Liberal?
I know Liberal is some sort of insult in the USA. But I find it so depressing that Clegg has abandoned the Liberal ethos so much as to have taken part in this. I was already moving my vote from Liberals to Green/Pirate/SNP but still its a sad day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: Liberal?
  All three main parties are part of the neo-liberal elite who have no idea what it is to be truly liberal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Liberal?
  Indeed. I wrote to Clegg a little while asking what his position on this NSA stuff was, as Lib Dems have been very quiet. Seems I have my answer...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John, 22 Aug 2013 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: Liberal?
  Liberal in the US is only a "bad" thing to less than half of the country. The US does not have a liberal party.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:15am

"On the specific issue of records held by the Guardian, the deputy prime minister thought it was reasonable for the cabinet secretary to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands."

Did no one think to tell this idiot that the destruction of ONE set of records was absolutely pointless and would serve only to anger the people it was being done to? Something like "Awakening a sleeping Giant", perhaps? As Clemons once said "It's not wise to anger people who buy printers ink by the barrel."

The "wrong hands"? Meaning someone who would publish it and show the world thet they are somewhat less than honest and forthright? Those "wrong hands"? I soitainly hope so - the sooner the better. IMHO, the only danger is in showing them to be the liars, cheats, and thieves they are. Personal security? Maybe. National security - not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  You forget that politicians are old farts that have no idea about technology and are not in touch with the public at large, they then consult with over paid 'experts' who are about the same age and have the same education level, this all leads to some of the worst choices and most ridiculous actions. Oh and many laughs from us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's a very good point. Time was, when technology was in it's infancy or nonexistent, that age signified wisdom and maturity. Turns out that the wisdom was simply hardening of the brain. Maybe their should be a MAXIMUM age for active politicians - say in the mid to late 40's?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You'd be solving the wrong problem, there's plenty of people much older than them who understand tech fine.
      
      No, what should be put in place is 'competency/knowledge tests', where a politician/judge has to pass a mid-level knowledge/competency test on a subject before they are allowed to make any laws or rulings affecting it. Don't know anything about computers? You're forbidden from proposing, making suggestions, or voting on any laws that affect them until you learn.
      
      Just like in any other job where you have to prove you know what you're doing before they let you have at it, politicians/judges should have to prove they know the subject at hand before being allowed to write laws or make judgements affecting it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dave, 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Roger THAT!
        Absolutely brilliant idea. Too bad it'll never happen. Those that understand are obvious. Those that don't fall back on the usual obfuscation, BS, and snow jobs, and refuse to learn. I mean they can use a smart phone, can't they? Why should they need to learn? That's for geeks.
        .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I could agree more with this statement being so well said .after all others competencies like that of healthcare are skill tested critical in handling the lives of others .courts/ judges should have the same fundamentals. considerably in question. where I'm from it is blk and white
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This. This is genius. It'd prevent stupid proposals and debacles like CISPA and make governments be more efficient.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 5:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The thing is, the main British politicians *are* in their mid-forties. And still authoritarian to the hilt and technologically clueless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Arioch (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The British judicial system is not noted for being even close to technology. This is shown here in a sketch from the 1970's UK TV programme "Not the Nine O'Clock News"
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgwxKW0J6I
    
    It applied then and still applies now!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:22am

And of course David Cameron took his orders directly from his master, Obama.

"Obey Me, Cameron! - Yes, master! Miranda will be arrested immediately, as you requested..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  As a Doctor Who fan, I give you 1+ for the (possibly inadvertent) riff on The Master's greatest lines...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2013 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re:
  {in a buzzy monotone} "As you command".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:28am

The UK government is not looking good right now, is crystal clear that this was not done to protect anything just to show how bad things can become if others don't comply with them and the British government didn't even bother with the law, just sent the goon squad to trash everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:29am

"He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish". WOW! Really? How can you claim to protect the media's freedom to publish when you order them to destroy documents that do NOT endanger national security of anyone.

Is the UK really concerned that Al Qaeda could reveal the existence of another top secret NSA spying program? The UK really needs to seriously think things through before they act on impulse.

The British government taking orders from their masters in the U.S. Government? lols Clegg and Cameron are both idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ioconnor (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:37am

What Would James Bond Have Done?
I just finished watching most of the old 60s James Bond movies on Netflix. I can't help but think of what a modern day James Bond would do? Take retirement and live as far away from these politicians as possible? Would he change his citizenship?

Possibly he died and Spectre won. That would explain this and many other things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 9:59am

Call to the cloud
Make backups. Use multiple cloud services. My guess is they were complient because they did have these things backed up and were thinking silently to themselves: Cameron go fornicate with yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Call to the cloud
  Yeah, they outright told the spooks/politicians that those were not the only backups they had, but an HD had to be destroyed to send a message to those that embarrass the governments, so destroyed and HD was.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:17am

These fiascos are all predicated on fear of the unknown so pols try to instill fear in everyone so theirs will seem normal. In spite of the complete failure of any of this spying and fear mongering to have yielded a useful result, the pols are mostly afraid that they'll get blamed for the next bombing and they don't know what to do about it. Further, since they don't understand any of the technology they're afraid of that too. Somehow, in their uninformed minds, the Internet is directly responsible for all their problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 22 Aug 2013 @ 1:20pm

I can't help wondering, if the Guardian wrote some of that information on chalkboards, would the government have insisted that they smash them with hammers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nubwaxer, 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:19pm

the government comes off looking like complete ineffectual and ignorant fools throwing a childish tantrum. hey, morons, what you're looking for is not there, instead it's there, there, there . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:13pm

Impeachment?
Does the UK have some sort of equivalent to impeachment other than just starting another parliamentary election? If so that sounds like we have a british Nixon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jan Bilek (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:30am

security uber alles
Exactly, "security uber alles". What is surprising to me is that security is used as some kind of absolute argument, like it's some kind of absolute value that justifies anything. What about other values? Where is the line and why is there no discussion about it? When I read a story about TSA agents stripping down a dying old lady to make sure there is no bomb in her diaper I just think that I would rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than live in a society that needs do that to feel safe.

At what point does reasonable safety turns into cowardly society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Postulator (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:55am

So the Liberal Democrats are not exactly liberal, nor democratic.

Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 5:54am
  
  Re:
  No, just Clegg. Normally the rest of them are a lot noiser about stuff like this, but they are being suspiciously quiet - probably trying to hang onto power while they can.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
antymat, 23 Aug 2013 @ 4:14am

Just like a Guinea Pig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me creative, 24 Aug 2013 @ 5:30am

For starters lets make one thing clear: the UK government is a company whose biggest 'clients' are the wealthy and nobility. This is what they mean when they refer to 'national'. Any endeavours (such as meddling in other countries affairs, fracking/oil prospecting etc) are at their benefit mainly. We the people get a what we can, a trickle down from the main sponge. Let us stop presuming democracy exists and that we have true representation - we're wasting time and grey cells. Imagine UK as a boat - we are the slaves rowing it but ultimately whatever our masters do abroad will affect us: we will all sink. I just wish they would stop dicking around with other boats. For a group of people to take certain militant actions is either an act of aggression or retaliation for aggression - terrorism generally falls into the latter. IMHO the Cold War never really ended (or WW2 for that matter), just that the battlefield and the weapons have changed (and the players). Speaking of which, anyone who remembers board games like Risk? Well imagine having a hybrid of that with Monopoly..

'The pen is mightier than the sword' and the ignorance/naivety of the masses will breed inactivity for years to come.

As for data: there are people prepared to die who report on moral discrepancies around the world. This scaremongering by the puppets Cameron et al is confusing at best.

�We build but to tear down. Most of our work and resource is squandered. Our onward march is marked by devastation. Everywhere there is an appalling loss of time, effort and life. A cheerless view, but true.� - Nikola Tesla
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me creative, 24 Aug 2013 @ 5:32am

..oh and the Guardian are clever enough to use Apple's cloud email to communicate (despite what they tell us). Apple won't give the CIA or anyone else a back door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tushar Agarwal, 2 Sep 2013 @ 12:09am

WORK on inustries
mainly exporting companie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]