NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden not welcome in the UK | Hacker News Reader

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden not welcome in the UK

express.co.uk

98 pointsambuj53 comments

As a UK citizen I feel that he certainly hasn't done me any harm and probably has done quite a lot of good so I find it bizarre that the government would make such a statement, especially as he would be mad to consider coming here!

I presume the real reasons for this are:

- To show solidarity with the US (presumably the NSA and GCHQ are as thick as thieves)

- So he doesn't give anyone at GCHQ ideas

I'm going to write to my MP about this:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Great link, I will write to mine now. Any ideas what kind of thing to write and how to structure it? I've never done this kind of thing before so any help would be great :-)

If you want to be taken seriously then keep it respectful. MPs regard themselves as representatives who use their own judgement, not delegates who have to do what their constituents tell them.

Do not rant. Outline your concerns clearly and directly, request that they take some form of action, and ask them to reply to you giving their views and what action they took. Remember that the MP will expect requests to be something actionable: ask them to consider writing to the Home Secretary and/or Prime Minister, speak if the matter comes up for debate, sign an early day motion, etc.

It's important to ask them to reply to you - and be prepared to follow-up if they don't. I've read that there is a lot of variation among MPs in how they deal with this kind of contact. My MP, a young-ish fairly enthusiastic Lib-Dem, is pretty good in this respect. More 'traditional' MPs may be not so good. Give them time, though. Despite the popular view, they are busy people.

Also remember that MPs as individuals have essentially no power in issues relating to day-to-day foreign relations and state security. Don't expect too much.

(Also, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/houserules)

Excellent advice - particularly about making a request that is actionable and asking for a reply.

Thank you! In regards to them not replying: My local MP seems to take issues very seriously when written to. We had an issue a few months ago regarding my sister not being able to get to school and getting fined and she was in constant contact and helped solve the situation.

I emphasise, do not rant - my partner worked in an MPs office answering the mail, you don't want to fall into that category, which is still read and responded to, but which is almost never actioned/considered seriously/even read (by the MP themselves) in any way.

bad signs - all caps, more than a page long, written on a typewriter, hand written in illegible writing, etc.

Wait, why is "written on a typewriter" a bad sign?

There seems nothing particularly suspicious about handwriting either, though as a practical matter, legibility might be a problem...

Well, there's a story behind this one.

I once wrote to David Milliband (when he was foreign secretary) on the urging of Amnesty International about the upcoming international vote on the banning of cluster bombs.

I wrote it on a 1920s typewriter, sealed it with wax etc, as befitting a letter to one of the holders of the four highest offices, and never got a reply (although they did succeed in banning the use of cluster munitions - good!)

Later, when my partner was working for an MP, I mentioned the letter to her - and she laughed at me and said it would have been "one of those letters," because of the presentation - and that that's why I wouldn't have got a reply etc. ( I also made the mistake of writing directly to Milliband himself, and not to my MP asking him to pass it on, which is another reason I may not have got a reply.)

I fear this story makes me out to be all three of hipster, lefty and (worst of all) impressed-by-authority, so I predict all the downvotes in this forum, but it explains my earlier comment, so it's probably worth it for completeness.

> she laughed at me and said it would have been "one of those letters," because of the presentation

But did she mention why they think that way? On the face of it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Because eccentric presentation implies eccentric ideas, I think. They certainly do get a lot of letters from a lot of very vocal, very extreme people (who want homosexuality banned, hanging brought back, etc.)

My well that's kind of disturbing... not that they do such correlations (everybody does), but that typewriting/handwriting are considered "eccentric" to the point where they don't even read the letters.... [I mean... if they actually read them, surely a good argument and moderate tone would outweigh any initial judgement from slightly non-mainstream presentation?]

So if you want them to read your letter, you'd better write it in Microsoft word, using Arial, at medium size, without any formatting, and print it out on an inkjet printer on A4 paper?

[And sorry for the snarky/argumentative tone, it's obviously not your fault and you can't do anything about it, but it really is disturbing...]

No, no...

They do read all the letters (at least, the researcher does.) It is only the first signal.

A handwritten letter isn't in itself an indicator - someone may simply have not had much time - if the writing is difficult to read, or if it's several pages long, then we're into danger territory.

Generally the MPs first see their mail alongside their researchers' draft responses to them. They do need to know what they wrote back to everyone so that if they meet the constituent at a Surgery they will know what they're talking about.

I have a friend who at one point had to wade through letters to a state legislator. The staff have to sludge through these letters every day, and they end up categorizing quickly. They correlate things like typewritten letters or weird things to the crazy stuff that they get.

Keep in mind, representatives are public people, and they get wacky things. Marriage proposals, insane ramblings, dog droppings, manifestos, abusive letters, frequent fliers who write multiple letters per day, etc.

Maybe it is a warning for him. Don't come here, or we may be forced to hand you over. We are too weak to protect anyone, so just stay away? Can I be that optimistic?

Possibly, but I doubt if the warning is intended for his benefit - I would suspect it is meant more along the lines of "Don't you dare come here and cause an embarrassing political mess".

> To show solidarity with the US (presumably the NSA and GCHQ are as thick as thieves)

Yes, and it is also consistent with the proposition that the UK's decision to extradite Assange was made at the political level in order to suck up to the USA.

Sweden is not the same as the UK. Sweden's extradition laws are bit less vague than the British ones. The risk of the US asking Sweden to extradite Assange is pretty much nil at this point. At least, if the US has any sense of PR and not trying to adopt the German diplomacy of the First World War.

Why is it bizarre ?

The UK government simply doesn't want a repeat of the diplomatic mess that was Julian Assange's asylum claim.

I find it bizarre that they feel the need to make the statement - it's not like there is any chance he would be considering coming here.

It's signaling.

Speaking as European (non-UK), I do find this bizarre because it makes the UK look weak. It loses face.

You would expect the UK to have enough going for it that it can stand up to the USA, yet here they seem to be so scared of some diplomatic conflict with the US that they preemptively ban someone who is not at all a criminal (under UK/EU law). It's not something you would expect a proud nation to do.

When it comes to UK/US relations, that ship has long sailed.

That is fun. But they do have the right according to wikipedia.

The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.[4]

So basically Toni Blair has bent over, spreaded cheeks and prelubed himself.

a) Tony, b) hasn't been in power for some time now.

The treaty was signed in 2003. He was pretty much in office as a walking rubber stamp for any Bush request back then if I recall correctly.

Exactly, yes.

More over, the US doesn't NOT need to show evidence. It just needs to make the claim and say that it has evidence. No UK court gets to see any evidence at all.

IIRC, it was supposed to be two way, but the US never signed off on it's half of it, while we good little Brits let the legislation sail through.

I think we'd be better off in the UK with Europe and Russia on our side these days.

In fact we'd probably be better off with the Eastern Bloc states if they existed as well...

"The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to discuss the matter publicly."

The irony is delicious.

"The ship of state, dear Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top" - Sir Humphrey Appleby

But, what does he have to hide??????????

Related: "Senior politicians from across the political divide have united to call for UK security services to be given greater internet monitoring powers" [1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22891845

And this is the point at which they no longer represent us but themselves.

The crazy thing is they're trying to claim Nick Clegg is shielding companies rather than the people.

I just can't understand the slightest bit why anyone thinks that snooping and storing everyone's data is a necessary thing to do. They don't even make the wild claim that it'll stop terrorist attacks, they want it to find out who people were talking to after the attacks.

Madness.

And to top it off, you can't easily find a copy of the letter because it's behind the Times' pay wall! Not a single story has a link to the actual letter.

I guess "dealing with" Assange is expensive enough for them.

Just think about all those police officers constantly monitoring the ecuadorian embassy.

Now think about having two of them in the country! Crikey!

When the 'Hong Kong Baffled by Snowden's Hideout' WSJ article was posted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5853397), one paragraph that leaped out at me and also got some attention in the comments was the following:

"Hong Kong is the worst place in the world for any person to avoid extradition, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom," said one lawyer who’s worked on a dozen extradition cases both in the U.K. and Hong Kong"

I don't know what to make of that or how to put it together with this Home Office alert, but it is all rather interesting.

I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing.

Realistically if he was in the UK he'd face extradition to the US. The home office putting out this alert means they won't have to do that.

The US would be happy for Snowden to enter the UK where he could easily be arrested.

It's a bit irrelevant. There's not a chance that he would have even considered coming to the UK.

Well hypothetically say he wanted to go to Iceland, you can't fly from HK to Iceland so you'd have to change in Europe.

The obvious route is changing via London Heathrow, this stops him doing that.

He would have a lot of options in Europe, and even from Canada on certain days.

http://www.kefairport.is/English/Timetables/Arrivals/Yesterd...

http://www.kefairport.is/English/Timetables/Arrivals/

Actually the airports of Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris are all bigger, better and see more traffic than outdated Heathrow.

You could definitely argue that Heathrow isn't the best airport, but it's clearly the biggest by passenger numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in...

(CDG might be bigger for non-human traffic)

As a French citizen, I'd like to object vigorously to the notion that Paris (if you mean Paris Charles de Gaulle, Paris' main airport) is one of the "better" airports.

If I believe wikipedia, Heathrow is actually Europe's busiest airport (CDG is next).

As a UK citizen I vigorously object that Heathrow is the "best" airport.

Erm. How exactly is he detrimental to the public good?

Possibly because his example encourages citizens to take a stand and act against those who like to work in the shadows.

They probably mean detrimental to the governments good. They wouldn't want to say no to US requests but they would been seen as the bad guys while the extradition (and/or asylum) proceedings dragged on for months.

They are also trying to pass legislation (Communications Data Bill) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22891845 to allow[1] communications logging of metadata. Having him in the country would make it even more newsworthy as there would be a human interest angle.

[1] Whether they are doing it now without legal standing is an interesting question. My guess is yes and the former Labour home secretaries are aware and complicit and would really like it legitimised.

They are doing it now with legal standing. (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000)

Specifically chapter 2: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/I/chapter/I...

The new legislation is updating the definition of Communications Data for the age of application specific messaging.

He'd be an idiot to come here, the UK government thinks the sun shines out of the USA's ass.

"detrimental to the public good"? How about letting the public decide that?

I'm sure he's very disappointed. That's a big loss for him.

HMRPR hard at work to avoid Assange 2.0

After Assange this is a surprise?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com