UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism' | Hacker News Reader

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

reuters.com

102 pointsphelmig28 comments

I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited in the article.)

By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause".

Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is on.

This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against.... Effectively, "it's piracy because we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document.

The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives."

Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.

Endangering people's lives is quite abstract. If you happen to do IT security and carry documents about hacking cars with you, then in theory you are endangering people's lives. Still probably your goal is to improve security to safe lives.

If you carry documents that are uncovering a surveillance state you might endanger the lives on a few people relying on it. Still probably your goal is to improve privacy and long-term safety for the general population.

I think we should be way more careful with what we call terrorism. Democracy requires whistleblowing, free speech and critical perspectives on governments actions. Even if that means that this complicates some of the government's operations. The question is not just about safety but about commensurability.

When you get in your car to go to work, you are endangering peoples' lives. So, uhh... yeah... this is a justification that can be stretched quite far.

True, but the quoted statement appears to be self-contained. It is that much more interesting that the author of the document seemed to feel the need to add justification beyond the assertion that the documents could endanger people's lives. It is this added justification that strikes me especially problematic.

The definition of terrorism that is implied is so vague and arbitrary that it seems that it can be attributed to almost any political process.

It's a quote from another document so we have no idea if it's self contained without seeing the original document.

It's also worth remembering that Greenwald chose that quote to go in his article so would have chosen to put it in a context that emphasises his viewpoint.

I still don't understand why Miranda flew though the UK when he was carrying UK intelligence materials - still looks like a baited trap for publicity to me.

you mean any political process that happens to threaten someone with a big enough mouthpiece to declare it terrorism

... Uh, defense industry lobbyists ...

He was likely carrying car keys, a cigarette lighter, and some duty free alcohol as well…

Yes, this had me as well. I think Orwell is spinning in his grave right now.

When everything that is meant to change status quo becomes terrorism we will live in a terrible world.

Orwell has been spinning at the relativistic limit for some time now. He can't spin any faster.

This is where it makes sense to point out that the US, the source of these troubles, still has a much higher standard of freedom (including of the press) than countries like the UK. Ironic.

"...still has a much higher standard of freedom..."

It's interesting you used the phrase "higher standard", as opposed to "amount of". The NSA seemed to have tons of freedom.

This kind of response is not new sadly. On Netflix, there is a documentary on Daniel Elisberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers [1] - The Most Dangerous Man in America [2]. If you watch it and you'll see some of the parallels to today with the responses between the State and Journalism.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/

There is an interesting comment [1] from Ellsberg on Snowden as well:

[1]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427...

How do they know that his storage media contains 58,000 documents. Were the files not transferred in an encrypted archive?

Since it's probably going to be changed soon, original submission's title: The UK just equated journalism and terrorism...

Should I change the title? I don't see how it violates any rules? It's not click-baiting either. Unfortunately it's quite a summary of what the article says ...

Yes, you should use the original title.

See "Why We Revert to Original Titles" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6572466)

The guidelines ask you to use the original title apart from some narrow exceptions, which this submission doesn't meet. (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> Otherwise please use the original title

Your modified title is misleading and is link-baity.

The hackernews mods often change titles when they differ from the title of the page that it links to. I cited yours because I think it's good.

Thanks :-)

UK was asserting that Miranda was involved in espionage and terrorism, but you're asserting that it was journalism (carrying documents on behalf of Greenwald) and I don't think that's really accurate.

Well he was carrying documents meant for a journalist, that where to be published by a legit newspapers. Sounds like being a part in a journalistic process to me.

Sure the title maybe a bit edgy, but that it what it comes down to. That is the important (and very bad) message.

Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in the disclosure, or threat of disclosure...".

That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything?

They really did equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while editorialized, is not an exaggeration.

For some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document was read out, right?

Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article) Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc)

But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is an exaggeration.

EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.

Pretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.

Actually the title is what Miranda says in the article about two thirds down.

I think that is actually a Greenwald quote:

'In an email to Reuters, Greenwald condemned the British government for labeling his partner's actions "terrorism."

"For all the lecturing it doles out to the world about press freedoms, the UK offers virtually none...They are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism," he said.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com