UK Prime Minister Urges Investigation Of The Guardian Over Snowden Leaks; There Shall Be No Free Press
from the chilling-effects dept
While freedom of the press is fairly deeply engrained in the US, that's not so true elsewhere -- and that became abundantly clear with the absurd theatrics of UK officials forcing the Guardian to destroy a computer in the basement for no reason at all. And now UK Prime Minister David Cameron is ratcheting things up, urging Parliament to investigate The Guardian to see if it broke any laws:David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.I've read that statement over and over and over again, and I still don't see what the double standard is. Both involve reporting on things of public interest, which, last I checked, is exactly what news organizations are supposed to do.
He made his proposal in response to a question from former defence secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden.
Then it gets even more bizarre, with Cameron arguing that the above-mentioned computer destruction somehow "proves" that the news organization knew it was breaking the law.
Speaking at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said: "The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files.That's a plainly ludicrous interpretation of what happened. First, it wasn't a "polite" request, but there was a very clear implied threat to the Guardian if it didn't comply. Second, using oppressive censorship on the one hand to argue in support of further oppressive censorship on the other hand isn't exactly a winning argument.
"So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security. I think it's up to select committees in this house if they want to examine this issue and make further recommendations."
In the end, what Cameron is doing is making it clear that the UK can have no free press. It can only have stenographers. When the government threatens to have you investigated for reporting on the excesses of government, you've created massive chilling effects, and guaranteed much greater corruption and abuse, as you've wiped out a key factor in keeping those things in check. Cameron's statements reflect poorly on the wider UK and its supposed belief in free speech and a free press.
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: chilling effects, david cameron, edward snowden, free press, freedom of the press, gchq, investigation, surveillance, uk
Companies: the guardian
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deriving any other message from his ramblings is a lost cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cameron is an idiot and a bloody liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are spying on their own citizens because they can, willing to bet special attention is paid to political rivals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as UK spying is concerned, ever hear of Echelon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We have already been undermined (past tense, bud)
But try to have some semblence of a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no conspiracy, just corruption and incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your argument is invalid and your scorn of the UK misplaced.
Scorn them for being Uncle Sam's prison bitch, by all means. I'll join you, but can the histrionics and tinfoil hattery. We all know where the problem is. It's on the Far Right and no amount of shouting "Squirrel" is going to fool anyone.
That said, authoritarians are found on both sides of the aisle and what scares me is how much they've realised they have in common. Perhaps we should just call them "Authoritarian" and leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think again. Freemasonry has been pervasive here since the days of the early colonists. Virtually every President, including the first, George Washington, was either a Mason or worked alongside them. Their influence is pervasive throughout government.
"We all know where the problem is. It's on the Far Right..."
As opposed to the Far Left? Democrat, Republican, two sides of the same coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, so what? You'll need more than just "they're everywhere" to make your case. There are a lot of groups that have been around for as long as (or longer), and are as pervasive as the masons. Christianity, for one.
So why is freemasonry special?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GCHQ spies on The Guardian
It spies on everyone, the queries it runs are not subject to warrants, not approved by judges and appeal courts, half of the main filters are not even chosen by them, they're chosen by the NSA and out of their control.
The law that lets them do this is the Snoopers Charter, oh hang on we rejected that law. The law the lets them is the Intercept Modernisation Program, nah we never passed that one either. We never passed any of these surveillance laws.
In fact there is no law to permit this. Which is why Parliament decided to launch an inquiry. I assume Andrew Parker MI5 is spying on them, because he gets wind of it and tries to preempt it with an attack on the Guardian.
So now how can the Parliamentary committee do their work when their being spied on? When the witness are being spied on? When you can't make a comment to the committee because the mafia continue to spy in violation of the f**ing law!
When Big Brother watch prepares their presentation, the spooks will have intercepted the emails discussing it. When Guardian tries to reveal any revelation of laws being broken, GCHQ/NSA/MI5 will be there with fake astroturf and carefully timed stories fed to the press.
How can the committee do its job properly when nobody is free to speak to them.
This is not the job for a committee, it's a job for a special prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
I've read that statement over and over and over again, and I still don't see what the double standard is. Both involve reporting on things of public interest, which, last I checked, is exactly what news organizations are supposed to do.
Mike, it's pure confirmation bias. Cameron is working with an assumption that he believes is a fact. It's what makes him dangerous because he's an authoritarian looking for heads to bust. Your logic and facts are invalid. You've slighted him by exposing the schemes he's had on national security.
That's what his agenda truly is. Cover up the crimes while he's in charge so that it doesn't come to bite him and there's no accountability for his lack of concern for his nation's needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the Guardian will change its mind on press regulation
Something else I find interesting though is how the Guardian will square this with their own championing of new press regulations. This is clearly government interference in a free press but they seemed to be all for it when it was government interference in the work of their competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) Shoot the messenger
3) Continue with business as usual
4) ?????
5) Profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and all he is worried about is whether the Guardian Newspaper broke the law? what sort of fucking half wit takes that road? the sort that doesn't give a toss about anything except himself and his ideals!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
for data that has already been duplicated, hmm.........
or
"by doing what we asked, they proved their guilt"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case 2: Guardian reports on violation of privacy when governments spy on citizens
Toryscum: WHAT HYPOCRITES! INVESTIGATE THEM (and not the agencies who did the spying)
Cameron: LOL GUD IDEA MATE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, this is unsubtle.
Only US government officials are stupid enough to think that statements like "no more free press because TERRORISTS" pass the sniff test.
I wonder if this is going to become a major issue eventually? Are we going to have generals and/or world leaders insisting that "free press with government oversight" is somehow not an oxymoron? Or maybe dead tree media will die out before that has a chance to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, this is unsubtle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, this is unsubtle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, this is unsubtle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
instead of forcing this issue, he needs to ask the people what they want, instead of making them lose everything on his say-so. like all politicians, the thing he is best at is lying!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason
Pray tell do share your unique knowledge of vague one?
Would Al Qaida (trained by the CIA) know more about CIA techniques perhaps? Would Abu Dabu the terrorist stop updating his Facebook page?
Or are you just spouting vague nonsense to justify covering a major violation of the laws. The laws that protect our democracies from dictators for decades?
We outlived the IRA, and in the last 2 years you GCHQ creeps have done more damage to our freedom than they ever did.
" What the hell does anyone expect, but the full force of someone bigger than themselves to come down on their numbskulls."
I expect GCHQ to obey the laws of the UK. I expect a special prosecutor to be appointed and the head of MI5 to resign in shame.
General Alexander can promise all kinds of protections to Americans (even if he's lying), but he offers no such protections for the UK. You helped him spy on us. You are traitors to the UK.
The democracy pyramid stops at Parliament. It does not extend to the NSA. GCHQ does not answer to the NSA. NSA can complain you weren't reaching your quota, but Parliament didn't set any such quota.
Go home, and tell your children you've sold them out to a foreign power. Then do the decent thing. F*ing traitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason
Care to point out where ANY of the Snowden leaks have impacted human lives beyond making those in power uncomfortable?
I also disagree with you labeling it "treasonous". I know this story concerns the UK and not the US, but Ben Franklin still expressed it the best with:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason
In any case wouldn't pretending that we didn't know about their scummy activities really impact real humans lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is telling us how dangerous he is.
A random IT contractor with no special access or privileges than any of the other thousand posts took our government's documents from right under their nose. He acted with such impunity that it's an undeniable fact that the only reason we know these documents had been taken is because he made a choice to tell us. If Snowden, or the people at the Guardian, were less civic minded they could have easily profited from that information in deeply dangerous ways instead of publishing them to force a much needed debate about these programs.
The thing is that there is an inescapable universal rule that means given we know Snowden did it then it could have be done before him. Given we only know it was done at all because of Snowden himself then it becomes even more likely that the NSA has had leaks before now. Leading to the ultimate irony that Cameron and others are attacking Snowden and the Guardian when their actions means such leaks, in the unlikely event they haven't happened before, can never have happen in a way that is actually dangerous and damaging in the ways people are trying to claim these leaks have been.
"The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files.
So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security.
And you sir just admitted that you think those files are so dangerous to national security they had to be destroyed but not so dangerous you bothered to make sure the people you blindly handed them over to were able to protect them.
He is quite literally making the case for why he thinks his own incompetence is dangerous.
Let me say that again because god damn me does to bear repeating. My government couldn't protect secrets they think are so damaging they want to investigate the press for leaking them. Not the people who couldn't see or didn't bother to look in to the security protecting those documents but the people who brought the gaping security holes to attention in a way that actually demanded action.
It would be funny if it was so fucking horrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If on the other hand the Guardian does feel it has 'crossed the line' they might not be so willing to stand up to scrutiny !
Being investigated does not mean you are guilty of anything.
It's clear from history Journalists and media are not immune from investigation on many issues, often leading to conviction or ruling against them.
Again, media is not a 'free pass' to skirt the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This again? Man, when is the "you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" going to get old? Any sane person can clearly see it's bullshit.
Just because the Guardian didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean they have to put up with proving themselves to every crackpot who can string two thoughts together. The accusation is that they have double standards for exposing the scandal on phone hacking and exposing the scandal of the NSA. That's not scrutiny, that's insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well in the same vein, if the NSA and GCHQ did nothing wrong then they'd not be bothered by the leaks, and would also welcome an independent investigation right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Privacy and wanting to avoid a legal fight are not shields or proxies for bad acts. Please drill that into your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, I'm surprised this hasn't already happened. Given the rhetoric about how damaging these revelations have been, it seems odd that it has been several months before anyone has considered a formal investigation. It's almost as if the Government doesn't actually think they've done anything illegal or all that damaging (or are more worried about the political backlash if they do do something, than the threat to public security).
If it turns out that the Guardian's actions were illegal (and thus not in the public interest) they should surely be punished? If it turns out their actions were legal, but not in the public interest (the damage to national security being disproportionately greater than the advantages brought by transparency and public awareness) the law may need to be changed. Similarly, if their actions were illegal but proportionate (i.e. in the public interest) the law will need to be changed to fix that.
Of course that isn't what this is about; the questions, debate etc. is all about politics; both inside Parliament and within the Press.
But being a newspaper that is causing the Government embarrassment shouldn't make them immune to prosecution. But nor should it be the cause of it. The law should be applied to all equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are a necessity, but they are also an extremely clumsy construct in a rule-bound society since interaction with them is under strict secrecy clauses or obscure legal obligations.
In this case, the legal obligations center around a secrecy attached to the release of information with only indirect links to GCHQ. How these informations are shared with other secret services is the embarrasment. Data transfer is extremely sensitive and transfer of secret data should be even more so. That is what Cameron sees red about. Therefore I highly doubt that the investigation will have an even slightly relevant focus. Cameron wants to punish someone, not investigate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without satire and free expression, no press can be truly Free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the double standard
If one assumes that the information that Snowden acquired is similarly tainted, then the Gaurdian's act of publishing portions of it is also tainted and possibly illegal. There, now you have a double standard being used by the Guardian. I am not expert in UK law so if anyone with more knowledge can expound on this, please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is he on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did you say "deeply engrained"...?
Obama’s Efforts to Control Media Are ‘Most Aggressive’ Since Nixon, Report Says
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/
“Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations,” said the committee’s report, prepared by Leonard Downie Jr., the former executive editor of The Washington Post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did you say "deeply engrained"...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: did you say "deeply engrained"...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 Standards, no waiting.
When the government bugs phones they report it, that's another standard.
The government only has one standard, what they do is right and what other people do is wrong.
So when they bug phones it's right and when other people bug phones it's bad.
Statists logic is not like our logic, it's more advanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]