back to article Snowden journo boyf grill under anti-terror law was legal, says UK court

The detention and interrogation by British police of David Miranda, boyfriend of a journalist at the heart of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks furore, has been ruled to be legal by a British judge. Miranda was stopped at Heathrow airport and interrogated for almost nine hours last August under anti-terrorism legislation while in …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. James 51

    Councils have been using anti-terrorism laws to investigate people sending their schools outside of the catchment area they live in and for fly tipping too. He was detained under the wrong law (not sure which one they should have used) but this kind of abuse of the law and due process is hardily unique.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Not quite the same

      He was stopped and found to be carrying information contrary to UK law. Whilst I don't think anybody would argue that he was a terrorist the information he was carrying would certainly be useful to terrorists.

      Your comparison to councils is not dissimilar to comparing the detention of Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt with David's detention (and release). David was detained for 9 hours found to have been in possession of documents against UK law, the journalists in Egypt seem to have been detained indefinitely.

      1. James 51

        Re: Not quite the same

        There's a certain stigma to be being held under anti-terrorism legislation. Your name could appear on a number of certain registers and lists and without having a conviction you can find it difficult to do things like fly to the US, get certain jobs etc etc. I am not saying he should not have been detained, I am saying they should have used a more appropriate law under which to detain him.

        As for the info being of use to terrorists, juding by what has been on the news it would be of indirect use e.g. look how bad our enemies are, come fight with us but not in directly planning attacks.

      2. Richard Taylor 2
        Facepalm

        Re: Not quite the same

        "He was stopped and found to be carrying information contrary to UK law."

        Other than it was encrypted, I do not think so

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not quite the same @Richard Tyler

          He as a foreign national was carrying just over 58,000 stolen highly classified UK intelligence documents .... I guess they must have got past the encryption. Like it or not as a minimum this would be against the official secrets act.

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Not quite the same @Richard Tyler

            @Titus Technophobe.

            I suggest you read the Official Secrets Act.

            You either have to be (or have been) employed in various jobs associated with secrets (e.g. military, intelligence agencies, contractor etc.) or have specifically been advised by a suitable authority in advance (hence the idea of 'signing' the Act). As he fits into neither category, I don't really see how this Act applies. It's more likely that some sort of Spying offence would have been carried out, especially as he was a foreign national.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Stop

              Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

              A summary of the provisions of the Official Secrets act that apply to people who haven't signed is 'disclosure of or failure to return information which has been subject to the Official Secrets Act' is an offence.

              The paragraphs are -

              5.2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

              5.6) A person is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to have come into his possession as a result of a contravention of section 1 of the [1911 c. 28.] Official Secrets Act 1911.

              6.2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure of it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, that it has come into his possession as there mentioned and that its disclosure would be damaging.

              8.4) Where a person has in his possession or under his control any document or other article which it would be an offence under section 5 above for him to disclose without lawful authority, he is guilty of an offence if—

              (a)he fails to comply with an official direction for its return or disposal; or

              (b)where he obtained it from a Crown servant or government contractor on terms requiring it to be

              held in confidence or in circumstances in which that servant or contractor could reasonably expect that it would be so held, he fails to take such care to prevent its unauthorised disclosure as a person in his position may reasonably be expected to take.

              8.5) Where a person has in his possession or under his control any document or other article which it would be an offence under section 6 above for him to disclose without lawful authority, he is guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with an official direction for its return or disposal.

              8.6) A person is guilty of an offence if he discloses any official information, document or other article which can be used for the purpose of obtaining access to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and the circumstances in which it is disclosed are such that it would be reasonable to expect that it might be used for that purpose without authority.

              It is, as I understand it, a common fallacy to assume that the act either only applies to people who have signed it or worked in an official capacity for the UK government.

              1. dogged

                Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                Did you actually read any of that?

                He didn't willingly disclose it. One could argue that the police forced him into breach of the Act by forcing his disclosure. One can only commit a crime if one is not under duress.

                And anyway, the only relevant bit of the Act is from 1911 and states -

                "[a person is guilty of espionage if he] obtains, collects, records, or publishes, or communicates to any other person any secret official code word, or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy".

                (emphasis is mine)

                Since nothing he carried was calculated to be or might be or was intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy unless your definition of "enemy" includes "law abiding citizen of the UK" - and if it does, you and I have a big fucking problem right there - he cannot be charged under the Act.

                I work with lawyers a lot at the moment.

                *sigh*

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Not quite the same @dogged

                  In the court summary the documents are described as classified as either Secret or Top Secret. The definition of these classifications is information that is directly or indirectly useful to an enemy. The wording is different along the lines of putting individuals or the state in danger .... so you might have to think about this a little.

                  It is of course possible that the Police asked David to return rather than disclose the information? Maybe that's why he wasn't charged and they let him go after 9 hours?

                  1. Intractable Potsherd

                    Re: Not quite the same @dogged

                    Since this decision was made by Lord Justice (not Mr Justice as it says in the article) Laws, it is probably wrong, The man is a judicial activist of the highest order. Hopefully there will be enough money for Greenwald to go to higher court to get a more reliable decision.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                  He didn't willingly disclose it. One could argue that the police forced him into breach of the Act by forcing his disclosure. One can only commit a crime if one is not under duress.

                  Umm, no. It seems people are gently trying to step over the fact that he was knowingly carrying information which was a. not his to start with, b. very obviously was government level classified and c. was not given to him as part of any government work. In other words, he was carrying contraband, just digital (even if you leave the "national security stuff" out of the picture, it clearly was the result of theft).

                  An arrest based on a suspicion is perfectly acceptable for the purpose for investigation (probable cause principle), secondly, this arrest proved the initial suspicion to be correct and so the whole show moved into "being caught in the act" stage. That is concerned classified material just adds some sauce to it. There is no duress here - nobody forced him to carry that data, and there is nobody in the world who will believe him if he would say he didn't know what information he was carrying.

                  1. Mad Mike

                    Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                    @AC

                    "Umm, no. It seems people are gently trying to step over the fact that he was knowingly carrying information which was a. not his to start with, b. very obviously was government level classified and c. was not given to him as part of any government work. In other words, he was carrying contraband, just digital (even if you leave the "national security stuff" out of the picture, it clearly was the result of theft).

                    An arrest based on a suspicion is perfectly acceptable for the purpose for investigation (probable cause principle), secondly, this arrest proved the initial suspicion to be correct and so the whole show moved into "being caught in the act" stage. That is concerned classified material just adds some sauce to it. There is no duress here - nobody forced him to carry that data, and there is nobody in the world who will believe him if he would say he didn't know what information he was carrying."

                    As I have pointed out in another reply, the Official Secrets Act generally does not make possession an offence, but the act of disclosure is. Therefore, simple possession of the data probably isn't illegal in this act, although could be in others......e.g. spying. The duress comes in that the police made his disclose it to them. Therefore, the duress is what made him break the act i.e. forcing disclosure. It has nothing to do with carrying the classified material as that is not an offence under the Official Secrets Act.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                      @Mad Mike I've read it (on GOV.UK) and not that I can see, unless you are employed in one of the listed categories, which he wasn't. So, the Act doesn't apply to him. In fact, the Act specifically says you have to be informed previously that the Act applies to you. Don't think he was!!

                      I can only hope that you now realize this wrong......

                      5.2 Did he disclose it? No. Not willingly anyway. Possibly when threatened by the police.

                      The police stopped him as they had a suspicion, subsequently proved correct, that he was carrying the information. Failure to comply with a request to hand the material over would then be a breach of the OSA.

                      5.6 Two defences. Firstly, he didn't disclose. Secondly, it didn't come into his possession because of a breach of the Act. It came from the NSA and it was willingly given to them. So, it came into his possession possibly through a breach of an American law, not a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

                      Before suggesting that other people read the OSA if you bothered to read the act yourself you will find that obtaining materials from a foreign source is covered.

                      6.2 Again, no disclosure.

                      Not required it just has to be in his possession.

                      8.4 Was he asked to return it? No.

                      How do you know this? ..... I would have thought this would be the first question they would ask given that he was stopped because he was suspected to be carrying information.

                      Did he get it from a Crown servant or government contractor? No.

                      Read the OSA carefully.......

                      8.5 Was he officially asked to return it? No. Therefore he can't have failed to return it.

                      See above.

                      8.6 Again, no disclosure.

                      Irrelevant again.

                      So, he hasn't breached the Official Secrets Act in any way. He hasn't breached any of the sections you've highlighted, largely because they never actually asked to him to do anything (such as return it) and instead turned into the Stasi and escalated the situation potentially without need.

                      The Stasi, or indeed the Egyptian secret police (mentioned in the article) probably wouldn't have let him go. They stopped him on suspicion which was then confirmed how was this esculated?

                      I am quite aware the act doesn't need to be signed, hence my use of quotes around it. The act of 'signing' is simply making sure a person is explicitly aware.

                      You may be aware that the act doesn't need to be signed .... you didn't seem to be aware that it also does apply to people who haven't worked for the government.

                      1. Mad Mike

                        Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                        @Titus Technophobe

                        "You may be aware that the act doesn't need to be signed .... you didn't seem to be aware that it also does apply to people who haven't worked for the government."

                        I don't recall ever saying it didn't.

                        You don't seem to have answered a very major point, which is you have no evidence he didn't disclose when asked. Possession of material covered under the OSA is NOT an offence as otherwise, if someone found some at say a rubbish tip, they couldn't return it, as they would be committing an offence holding it!! That's why the OSA deals with what you DO with it, not mere possession.

                        And the funny thing is, he was actually allowed to go on his way rather than being charged with anything, let alone a crime under the OSA, which you seem to erroneously think he has committed and provided no evidence of. If he had, he would have been arrested and prosecuted as prescribed by the law. So, the police by letting him go are effectively admitting they had no evidence he had broken any laws, let alone the OSA!!

                        In your haste to support the action, you're casting around for excuses to denigrate him, whilst the police released him WITHOUT charge. Therefore, the police themselves disagree with you!!

                    2. kraut

                      Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                      This was an arrest under suspicion of carring classified information. It was a dention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism act.. which places very specific limits on the circumstances under which it can be exercised. Go and look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

                      Now, to any layman it would seem that the rules were clearly broken. Miranda is clearly not a terrorist, no matter how much you try to dilute the meaning of that word.

                      The judges disagreed. Which raises interesting questions about how valuable the alleged rule of law we have in the UK actually is in practice.

                      It's also worth noth noting that he was neither arrested nor charged with any offence. Now ask yourself: If half the government propaganda was true, and Miranda and Greenwald were actually posing a threat to the security of the country, would they have let him go? Bear in mind that you can - thanks to Blair - be imprisoned for years for "possessing items likely to be of use to a terrorist" (say, a map of London, or a smartphone).

                      No, this is all about preserving the reputation of the NSA and GCHQ, and covering up their illegal surveillance. And the judicial system is now officially complicit.

                3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: dogged Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                  "Did you actually read any of that?...." I've actually read the Act and signed the acknowledgement more than once and been given advice on its content, so I can tell you it does apply as a LAW. All UK citizens ANYWHERE in the World are bound by it, and anyone of any nationality coming into contact with material covered by the OSA - regardless of whether they disclose it or INTEND to be a party to a dislosure - are also expected to follow the terms of the law, especially if on UK territory. You DO NOT have to sign anything and DO NOT have to be in a particular type of job. Miranda was knowingly carrying copies of restricted material through British territory, having demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosue, a really stupid act, and one his attention-seeking boyfriend should have known better than to commit him to do.

                  ".....I work with lawyers a lot at the moment....." Not surprised, but you really should have asked them rather than trying to make the law into what you wanted to baaaah-lieve.

                  1. Mad Mike

                    Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                    @Matt Bryant.

                    "Miranda was knowingly carrying copies of restricted material through British territory, having demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosue"

                    How exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosure? Can they even prove he knew what he was carrying? Maybe he was just carrying something for his boyfriend and didn't know what it was? Did he cooperate fully with the police? As far as we know.

                    You're claiming all sorts of things without actually being able to prove them. Just because you want to believe all sorts of things, doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't mean the police could prove it.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                      ".....How exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosure? Can they even prove he knew what he was carrying? .....You're claiming all sorts of things without actually being able to prove them......" Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused when Greenwald and co keep changing their stories. First of all they claimed Miranda was just an e-mule, then they claimed he was working for The Guardian, and then they claimed he was not just a journo but actually deeply involved in the Snowdope work. I suggest you read the original Guardian report linked below, then the second link on how Greenwald's story has evolved.

                      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow

                      http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/06/part-ii-david-mirandas-detainment-the-calico-kitten-in-wag-the-dog/

                      1. Mad Mike

                        Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                        @Matt Bryant.

                        "Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused when Greenwald and co keep changing their stories. First of all they claimed Miranda was just an e-mule, then they claimed he was working for The Guardian, and then they claimed he was not just a journo but actually deeply involved in the Snowdope work. I suggest you read the original Guardian report linked below, then the second link on how Greenwald's story has evolved."

                        I agree the situation is very confusing and there have been lots of different claims, even by the same person. Hence, you cannot possibly know which is true and which is false and therefore you can't possibly make factual statements based on them.

                        So, my comment on how exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be party to its disclosure is absolutely right. People have said he was going to be, people have said the exact reverse. Nobody, least of all you, know the truth, so you can state facts.

                        As the police failed to charge him with an offence under the OFA, it would appear they also don't know, as otherwise, it would be a clear breach of the OFA and should result in charging at least and probably prosecution. So, even the police seem to back my position and disagree with yours!!

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: Mad Wannabe Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                          "....Hence, you cannot possibly know which is true and which is false...." You mean what you want to baaah-lieve. The articles I linked to also don't discuss the unlikelihood that little green men live on Mars, do you want to insist they do? I have commented to and linked to articles that list both actual events and analyse the pattern of lies spread by Greenwald and co. You have just bleated a load of cobblers without any form of evidence to back your position. You lose, get over it.

                          ".....So, even the police seem to back my position and disagree with yours!!" You really are getting desperate! The fact the coppers had to release him without charge due to lack of evidence after the nine hours DOES NOT MEAN they cannot ever arrest him should the little twerp ever be stupid enough to let his sugar daddy use him as an e-mule through UK territory again, especially now that they have EVIDENCE that he was carrying stolen documents. Seriously, just shut up and go talk about it to someone with half a clue, as you're just embarrassing yourself now.

                      2. Psyx

                        Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                        "Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused"

                        Loving the way you de-personalise everyone who doesn't agree with you, there.

                        I've not read so many sheeple comparisons since the last time I read a conspiracy theory website. Lots of people on those are convinced that anyone who doesn't agree with them are ill-informed idiots, too.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Happy

                          Re: Psyx Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                          ".....since the last time I read a conspiracy theory website...." So, you spend a lot of time visiting such sites?

              2. Mad Mike

                Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

                @Titus Technophobe.

                Let's look at each bit you've posted.

                5.2 Did he disclose it? No. Not willingly anyway. Possibly when threatened by the police.

                5.6 Two defences. Firstly, he didn't disclose. Secondly, it didn't come into his possession because of a breach of the Act. It came from the NSA and it was willingly given to them. So, it came into his possession possibly through a breach of an American law, not a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

                6.2 Again, no disclosure.

                8.4 Was he asked to return it? No. Did he get it from a Crown servant or government contractor? No.

                8.5 Was he officially asked to return it? No. Therefore he can't have failed to return it.

                8.6 Again, no disclosure.

                So, he hasn't breached the Official Secrets Act in any way. He hasn't breached any of the sections you've highlighted, largely because they never actually asked to him to do anything (such as return it) and instead turned into the Stasi and escalated the situation potentially without need.

                I am quite aware the act doesn't need to be signed, hence my use of quotes around it. The act of 'signing' is simply making sure a person is explicitly aware.

            2. Connor

              Re: Not quite the same @Richard Tyler

              The Official Secrets Act is a LAW (hence the act part at the end) not a contract. It applies to everyone, just like every other law. Ignorance is no excuse, nor is being born in another country, nor being the boyfriend of a journalist.

              Signing of the act is just to make people aware of what they will be dealing with and what consequences they face.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not quite the same

          Presumably it is fine for the North Koreans to arrest and harass people there, if they find them to be in possession of information contrary to NK law?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not quite the same

            Presumably it is fine for the North Koreans to arrest and harass people there, if they find them to be in possession of information contrary to NK law?

            Perhaps if North Korea behaved in the same way as the UK in this instance the UN might not be comparing them to the Nazi regime.

            Are you seriously trying to suggest that stopping David Miranda to recover 58,00 sensitive documents is the same as North Korea? In North Korea it would appear that you can be executed for watching South Korean movies? Was David Miranda executed? ..... No they let him go.

        3. Psyx

          Re: Not quite the same

          "Other than it was encrypted, I do not think so"

          I do, as it was Classified and greater level information owned by GCHQ and he was not authorised to carry it. He was not the legitimate owner, not cleared for it and the data was essentially stolen. Surely there cannot be much debate as to if the data was legal to possess or not.

          BUT:

          Detention under the official secrets act would have been the way to go, rather than the anti-terrorism laws. However, I suspect that the officials in question aren't au fait with OFA legislation and just used the tool they knew worked.

          Anti-terror legislation has become an unfortunate catch-all for the authorities. Don't like the look of that bloke with a camera? Stop him under A-T legislation. Dodgy youth? Search him under A-T legislation. It's a carte blanche and a too-easily-reached-for tool.

          Granted, our police officers are not trained lawyers and are not supposed to be: It is there job to try to enforce the law and the lawyers are supposed to cover the details. The police don't have the time to know how to properly detain everyone for everything and every law, and have to work with what they have been told. Sadly, they have been seemingly told that the anti-terror legislation is a great legitimate catch-all for rounding people up that will hold firm under judicial oversight.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Psyx Re: Not quite the same

            ".....Detention under the official secrets act would have been the way to go, rather than the anti-terrorism laws....." You are failing to understand that an eventual charge need have nothing to do with the original reason for a stop or search. For example, if a copper has a warrant to search your home for drugs and instead finds a ton of paedo material, they don't just go 'oh, sorry, we'll ignore that obvious crime because it's not what we were originally looking for.' If a traffic cop stops you for suspected drink driving and spots a loaded gun in your car you will be done for it. The coppers in the Miranda case used the anti-terror laws as it gave them a nine hour interrogation period and the powers to seize his electronic equipment. They justified it on the grounds that the information Snowdope was releasing was already leading terror groups to change their coms, meaning that there was a reason to believe any material on GCHQ techniques being carried by Miranda could also be of use to terrorists. The coppers had to let Miranda go after nine hours as they did not have enough to charge him by the end of that period, probably because they had not managed to decrypt and analyse his devices by then. Should Miranda be stupid enough to set foot on UK territory again he could very well be charged with both breach of the OSA and terror laws.

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: Psyx Not quite the same

              @Matt Bryant.

              "The coppers in the Miranda case used the anti-terror laws as it gave them a nine hour interrogation period and the powers to seize his electronic equipment. "

              You have to stop and hold someone using legislation pertinent to the reason you're stopping them. You can't just pick any old reason you fancy and worry about the charge later, although the police don't seem to understand this. Of course, additional or different charges could result, unrelated to the original reason, but the original reason must stand scrutiny and be proportionate and correct for the offence or belief you are investigating. It would be like holding someone under suspicion of murder in a shop to allow you to search them and eventually charge them with shoplifting.

              "They justified it on the grounds that the information Snowdope was releasing was already leading terror groups to change their coms, meaning that there was a reason to believe any material on GCHQ techniques being carried by Miranda could also be of use to terrorists."

              An oft cited reason, which so far has no evidence to back it up. Terrorists have known for decades (and a great many other people as well) what the NSA, GCHQ etc. were up to and how deep their monitoring was. There are clues everywhere. Known terrorist makes a mobile phone call and a few hours later, the location is hit with a missile from a drone. How does that happen without mobile phone calls being intercepted on a pretty much global basis? Little of what Snowdon released was particularly knew, it simply gave credence to the rumours circulating for decades.

              "The coppers had to let Miranda go after nine hours as they did not have enough to charge him by the end of that period, probably because they had not managed to decrypt and analyse his devices by then. Should Miranda be stupid enough to set foot on UK territory again he could very well be charged with both breach of the OSA and terror laws."

              Nope. They had to let him go as he had committed no offence. Given that he had the password on him, they could have decrypted well within 9hours, would have seen some of the content and could easily have charged him had an offence been commited. My bet is he can come and go as he likes with no issues.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re:Mad Wannabe Re: Psyx Not quite the same

                "....You have to stop and hold someone using legislation pertinent to the reason you're stopping them...." As explained, they did not just pick an excuse out of thin air, they had grounds for stopping him under anti-terror laws. Please just stop bleating for a minute and try actually READING what I posted.

                ".....but the original reason must stand scrutiny and be proportionate and correct for the offence or belief you are investigating....." Both the Home Secreatary and the Courts have ruled they DID have reasonable grounds. What you mean is you don't agree because you want to baaaah-lieve Snowdope, Greenwald and Miranda are some kind of Holy Trinity Of The Truth. As pointed out to you sheeple many, many, MANY times before, just because you desperately want to baaah-lieve in an alternate reality does not make it so. There are laws, there are people who sit in judgement on those laws, and they say you are talking out of your woollie backside.

                ".....They had to let him go as he had committed no offence....." Wrong. They released him because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence to pursue a charge at that point in time. It does not stop him being arrested at a later date now that the authorities have had time to gather said evidence from Miranda's kit. Whilst you can claim he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by his own admission Miranda broke the law. Listen, I really suggest that you go speak to those lawyers you mentioned as you very obviously know SFA about the law or how it operates. Oh, and you might want to make sure they are lawyers that work in government law rather than just those that deal with street crims on Legal Aid.

                "....Given that he had the password on him, they could have decrypted well within 9hours...." Wrong again. They not just had to decrypt his devices, they also had to analyse the contents to ensure they were actually stolen documents. Just imagine if Miranda had been planning a sting and had been carrying an USB key filled with fake docs all marked 'GCHQ, Top Secret', just in the hope the coppers would arrest him and then have to apologise for jumping the gun. I am betting the devices also had to be taken to a secure unit and copied before work commenced on the copies, all of which would have taken time. I'm also betting there would have to have been considerable analysis before the authorities would want to play their hand, such as scanning for hidden volumes, let alone the time lost when Miranda initially refused to hand over the laptop password. It seems you know nothing about the law nor how sensitive evidence is handled nor about the actual chain of events in the Miranda case. Please STFU and go do a lot more reading.

            2. Psyx

              Re: Psyx Not quite the same

              "You are failing to understand that an eventual charge need have nothing to do with the original reason for a stop"

              No I'm not, you patronising berk; I'm fully aware of how the law works. However, it is a failing of the current system that we just use whatever detain/stop and search legislation which sticks easiest and allows the most invasive and generous powers of search and detention.

          2. P. Lee

            Re: Not quite the same

            > our police officers are not trained lawyers

            Here's a problem - if the police don't know what the law says, how can they enforce it? Worse, how is the man in the street supposed to stay on the right side of the law?

            My take based on this forums is that the details of the case a less important to people here than the general disapproval of vague legal systems. The terrorists with bombs are few and mostly far away, but our own government is the one persistently using fear as a political weapon against the populace.

        4. Mika Peltokorpi

          Re: Not quite the same

          ... with paword that enabled to decrypt the suspect files. So got burned. This would be treated a treason against the state in Finland. But not as "terrorist act". Surveillance (by any means) of such suspect would be fully legal. I suppose, that this would be true to UK, also.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not quite the same

        I don't think this information was obtained legally in the first place by the NSA and GCHQ and in the US they certainly haven't instructed their border police to rough people up.

        Just look at what Germany have been saying on the matter, Germany is one of the most popular countries internationally and you can see why.

      4. dogged

        Re: Not quite the same

        > He was stopped and found to be carrying information contrary to UK law

        Hold on a moment.

        Are you now telling me that it is illegal for some information (regardless of type) to be carried in the UK? That somebody can be arrested for carrying some files around?

        We're not talking about theft here - nobody's accusing him of stealing anything. Even the charge of "handling stolen goods" generally refers to the actual bits of paper. He's not in breach of the Official Secrets Act because he never signed it.

        How can it possibly be illegal to carry information when one has broken no other law?

        Please, think about what you're suggesting.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not quite the same @dogged

          Are you now telling me that it is illegal for some information (regardless of type) to be carried in the UK?

          Yes ... OSA, Espionage these sort of laws. You will find that for certain jobs in the UK there is a requirement to sign the Official secrets act, this is to ensure that you are aware of the act. The Act Itself applies however regardless.

          How can it possibly be illegal to carry information when one has broken no other law?

          See above or read it yourself ......

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Not quite the same @dogged

            "The Act Itself applies however regardless."

            I've read it (on GOV.UK) and not that I can see, unless you are employed in one of the listed categories, which he wasn't. So, the Act doesn't apply to him. In fact, the Act specifically says you have to be informed previously that the Act applies to you. Don't think he was!!

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Connor

          Re: Not quite the same

          You don't have to sign the official secrets act to be bound by it. We all are. Besides, your justification could be equally applicable to a spy who didn't steal the information himself, is not British, and just happens to be carrying some secret files.

          You knowingly bring stolen British Intelligence files into the UK, you're going to be arrested. He's lucky he wasn't charged with spying in my book.

          I also don't understand Greenwalds whining about the British Empire. The British Empire is famous for many things, but holding journalists and restricting the press aren't things that spring to my mind. America on the other hand....

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Not quite the same

            @Connor.

            "You don't have to sign the official secrets act to be bound by it. We all are. Besides, your justification could be equally applicable to a spy who didn't steal the information himself, is not British, and just happens to be carrying some secret files."

            You notice that I never said you did anywhere in my post. You will also notice that I said spying laws would probably be more applicable.

            "You knowingly bring stolen British Intelligence files into the UK, you're going to be arrested. He's lucky he wasn't charged with spying in my book."

            Which I did say.

            "I also don't understand Greenwalds whining about the British Empire. The British Empire is famous for many things, but holding journalists and restricting the press aren't things that spring to my mind. America on the other hand...."

            I think you'll find there are the mechanisms in place to constrain the press and they have pretty similar scope to those in the USA. They may not have been used much to date, but as recent events show, their use is escalating more than somewhat.

        3. mio-the-mad

          Re: Not quite the same

          Official Secrets Act is UK law everyone in the UK was to follow it just like Offences against the Person Act as don't need to sign that to be found guilty of GBH. All signing the OSA is granting clearance to access information that is classified under the act.

        4. Ian Michael Gumby
          WTF?

          @dogged.... Re: Not quite the same

          "Are you now telling me that it is illegal for some information (regardless of type) to be carried in the UK? That somebody can be arrested for carrying some files around?"

          It depends on what that information contains...

          Stop me if you've heard this one...

          A long time ago, there was a revolution in the American Colonies against their British overlords.

          There was this one guy riding on horseback... Benedict Arnold who was a British Loyalist.

          He was found carrying a piece of paper in his sock...

          Do you really have to ask why one can be stopped and arrested for carrying around certain documents that they don't own?

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not quite the same@dogged

          Your reply doesn't take into consideration espionage how many of the spys had signed up to the official secrets act, not that many!

        6. JohnG

          Re: Not quite the same

          "Are you now telling me that it is illegal for some information (regardless of type) to be carried in the UK? That somebody can be arrested for carrying some files around?"

          This has been the situation for a very long time:

          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/28

          Para 1 (1) c

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not quite the same

          "We're not talking about theft here - nobody's accusing him of stealing anything. Even the charge of "handling stolen goods" generally refers to the actual bits of paper. He's not in breach of the Official Secrets Act because he never signed it."

          The Official Secrets Act is a LAW. Signing it is just a reminder that you're bound by it.

          Please, think about what you're saying.

        8. kraut

          Re: Not quite the same

          The OSA applies to anyone in the UK, whether they've signed it or not.

      5. RainbowTrout

        Re: Not quite the same

        If "He was stopped and found to be carrying information contrary to UK law" why was he released?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Anti-terror laws should be only used for anti-terror operations..

      I think they need to bring in severe penalties for misuse of powers, any by tougher penalties I mean real punishments like lashes, the stocks..

      Corporal punishment would be more effective as a punishment than prison for many crimes.....

      I think I should be the ruler, I may be mad, but its not like I could do any worse than our current government..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I think they need to bring in severe penalties for misuse of powers

        tick-tock, tick-tock..

        ...

        tick-tock, tick-tock...

        ...

        uhm... well, I guess it's not gonna happen in my lifetime. eh?

      2. Christian Berger

        "I think they need to bring in severe penalties for misuse of powers, any by tougher penalties I mean real punishments like lashes, the stocks.."

        The point is, as long as the laws are so deliberately vague, not limiting themselves to certain crimes and not defining "Terrorism". You first have to define "propper" use of a law before you can punish "misuse". And that is one of the problems here.

        It would be best to get rid of those vague "anti-terrorism" laws. There is virtually no terrorism in western countries, only abuse of those laws.

      3. sam bo

        "Corporal punishment would be more effective as a punishment than prison for many crimes....."

        I would argue that prison is a form of corporal punishment.

        Maybe they should apply the same rule to those that let Snowden get the info in the first place ?

        Their incompetence aiding terrorism ?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not just that, they've been using CCTV and spying to catch people who don't pick up their dog's shite.

      1. Anonymous Coward 101

        "Not just that, they've been using CCTV and spying to catch people who don't pick up their dog's shite."

        And once the dog owner has been apprehended, the council should rightly torture the dirty bastards to death.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Sir

          "He as a foreign national was carrying just over 58,000 stolen highly classified UK intelligence documents"

          You recall that the information was lifted from a server in the US right?

          1. dogged

            Re: Sir

            @Sir Runcible Spoon

            Precisely. And no extradition warrant for David Miranda has been issued even today.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Vic

          > So what? Those people deserve it.

          They might well deserve it - but the *rest* of society doesn't deserve having its rights trampled upon to achieve that end.

          Not clearing up your dog shit should be unlawful. But it isn't terrorism, and so anti-terrorist legislation - which, IIRC we were specifically assured would not be used for other purposes - is not the mechanism to be used.

          Vic.

  2. Danny 14

    As if anyone was surprised by the ruling.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      Huh?

      You seem to be implying that he was going to be found guilty regardless of his actual guilt.

      Sorry, but the court got it right.

      Were it Greenwald who was detained... then you could argue that he was a member of the press, however... that in and of itself isn't a strong shield.

      I'm probably going to get a massive amount of down votes, but Greenwald set his boy toy up to take a fall. Of course because of the information. Were Greenwald carrying it, he would definitely end up back in the US facing charges. (Whether he's guilty or not of anything but being a prat.)

      (Yes, I think Greenwald is a Don Quixote wantabe and a massive idiot.)

      When you are going to break the laws, be prepared to face the consequences.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: Huh?

        "When you are going to break the laws"

        Did I miss something? I wasn't aware he'd broken any laws. I'm sure if he had he would have been arrested, surely?

      2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

        Do you not see this as an abuse of anti-terrorism laws? Do you really think embarrassing the government should be on a par with plotting to kill, injure or maim innocent people?

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          Re: @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

          "Do you really think embarrassing the government should be on a par with plotting to kill, injure or maim innocent people?"

          Running up and putting a cream pie in to the face of one of the royals? That would be embarassing.

          But you could go to jail for assaulting them.

          How about snapping a photo on your iphone of the younger prince getting a lap dance in a strip club.

          Now that would embarrass the country...

          But taking and disseminating classified documents which hurt the national security of the country?

          Yeah, I'd say he deserves to be bitch slapped around a bit. Oh wait, he wasn't. He was just detained.

          He was a mule. And as a mule, when you get caught, you do the time.

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

            @ Ian Michael Gumby

            "But taking and disseminating classified documents which hurt the national security of the country?"

            Ah, but therein lies the problem. Whilst there's been a good deal of bluster and claims, there has yet to be a single example of where the revelations have actually hurt the national security of either the USA or GB. Maybe if they could come up with some examples, it might wash more, but simply claiming it doesn't count. After all, they could claim anything.

            This has nothing to do with national security and never has. It has everything to do with secret organisations having the extent of their illegal acts revealed, along with the politicians that have at minimum allowed them to do it, and sometimes were actually complicit.

            It's simply trying to get back at people who have rightly embarrassed them as they desperately needed embarrassing.

            And people wonder why politicians (and others) are held in such contempt. Because they have clearly shown time and time again, that they do not believe the rule of law applies to them, even though they create the laws!!

            1. Ian Michael Gumby

              @Mad Mike Re: @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

              They key to stopping a terrorist attack is to stop them before they can act.

              The information which Greenwald and Snowden have released has damaged the security of the UK and US countries.

              You're never going to find an 'aha!' moment or the proverbial silver bullet and even when you do, many will not believe it.

              Saddam admitted he was claiming to have WMDs as a way to keep the Iranians at bay. So while the information was ultimately false, it was true that Iraq claimed to have them. Saddam was amazed that the US fell for it, but that's another topic for discussion. Saddam's admittance was never widely publicized.

              Here's also an interesting rub. They stopped Glenn's boy toy. Now why did they know to stop him?

              Think about that.

              It goes beyond harassing someone. They had credible intelligence that he was the mule aka courier.

              1. Mad Mike

                Re: @Mad Mike @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

                @Ian Michael Gumby.

                "The information which Greenwald and Snowden have released has damaged the security of the UK and US countries."

                Another statement without foundation or grounding.

                "You're never going to find an 'aha!' moment or the proverbial silver bullet and even when you do, many will not believe it."

                Because nothings actually happened, I'm having to claim there never will be a moment!! Laughable. There has to be some event where the security services (or whoever) can say the terrorist attacked 'x' or 'y' because it said this or that in one of the released documents. They can't because it hasn't happened not because it couldn't.

                "Saddam admitted he was claiming to have WMDs as a way to keep the Iranians at bay."

                So, we now wage war and kills hundreds of thousands on the basis of what one man says? Let's not bother checking it's credible. Let's just take them at their word and go straight in. After all, why would you expect intelligence agencies to be able to work out that someones bluffing and get to the truth!! Might as well just watch the news and believe everything anybody says. (By the way, I'm insulting the British as well as the American intelligence agencies here).

                "Saddam was amazed that the US fell for it, but that's another topic for discussion. Saddam's admittance was never widely publicized."

                I suspect they probably knew he was lying, but it was a case of finishing told business. We all know General S was asked to go to Baghdad, but refused.

                "It goes beyond harassing someone. They had credible intelligence that he was the mule aka courier."

                Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe they just picked him up because he was the blokes boyfriend. That's not exactly intelligence or just cause though.

        2. hugh wanger

          Re: @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"

          Its not abuse, as the judges found it was completely proportionate.

          Read a lengthy Parliament document on this issue, which is well balanced:

          http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06742

          Guy was carrying documents, of which none of us know the contents.

          That's the trouble with coming to conclusions in the comments section, we aren't in possession of the facts. And these issues are overseen. Section 7 is clearly not used too frequently according to this paper above.

          People are getting hung up on the word "terrorism" and that he didn't have bombs strapped to him.

          But that's like arguing semantics. Take the word Terrorism out of it and call him:

          "bloke who has stolen information, from a Government agency"

          If he had been detained under general criminal law then we would all have probably said "fair enough".

          So should people get all het up in here about poor David? No. He got himself mixed up with Greenwald, and his "activity".

          Should they change the words used to detain people. Yes. Lets change the law to, "Terrorists and anyone else who commits crimes against the UK which includes espionage and stolen intelligence documents and basically anything else which by any objectiveness is just plain wrong/illegal"

          Then we should be all fine :)

          ps. The really funny things is, many of the "panties in a bunch" types on here moaning about privacy will mostly have Android phones sending their every click up to the GooglePlex. I love studying you odd human animals. Amusing.

      3. Blitterbug
        Facepalm

        Re: 'boy toy'?

        Hell yes, you're going to get DVd, and rightly so, regardless of any part of your argument being logical.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Bitterbug Re: 'boy toy'?

          Yes, he is his boy toy.

          I don't believe that they are legally married.

          So they are living in sin so to speak. Regardless of their sexual orientation that's the correct phrase.

          (Not that I'm passing judgement.)

          1. Blitterbug
            Facepalm

            Re: "So they are living in sin so to speak..."

            ...just...wow...I give up.

      4. kraut

        Re: Huh?

        The court got it wrong.

        "Mr Miranda was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows police to hold someone for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they have been involved with acts of terrorism."

        Which he patently and obviously wasn't. It was unlawful because the law was clearly, blatantly and deliberately misused. Harassing the partners of journalists to put pressure on them isn't something that a civilised state should do. End of.

        <quote>Yes, I think Greenwald is a Don Quixote wantabe and a massive idiot.)</quote>

        You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's clearly stupid.

        <quote>When you are going to break the laws, be prepared to face the consequences</quote>

        Or, if you're a police officer, no consequences.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So he had in his possession materials from GCHQ?

    It was an abuse of the anti-terror laws, as this has nothing to do with terrorism.

    BUT surely it is valid to question the person? they had on them classified documents right???

    While he might only have been carrying data that exposes GCHQ as harming civil rights, which in the grand scheme of things is not harmful to our nation, just embarrassing.

    He could just as easily been carrying nuclear secrets or transcripts or plans of our new aircraft carriers or plans for our new drones or one of a number of top secret bits of information that could harm us...

    WE may no longer have to worry about europe, but we do have to worry about other nations attacking, the USA seems to have an itchy trigger finger and I don't like the way they look at us...

    1. James Hughes 1

      We have a nuclear deterrent for two reasons.

      China

      USA.

      1. James 51

        Given that withouth the USA we'd have no deterrent I am not sure that they have that much to fear from us (watching the UK build the replacement for Trident alone would be funny (from a safe distance)). With them, it's more of an 'I'm a big boy too' kind of thing. Could easily subsitute that entry for France.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You do realise that without the work that the UK put into rescusing scientists from europe during ww2 & without several key brit scientists the whole manhattan project would probably never have finished in time to be usable (ie so that the whole world saw what the cost of using one in war really was) ???

          Also not to mention the work that our space program managed to do before it was closed down, and it produced several working and capable missiles that would serve as a working basis upon which to start a replacement for trident

          Seems to me, you are determined to knock the UK's ability to do anything without realising and knowing what we have already accomplished in our country & across the world. What we have done before we would be capable of doing again

          1. James 51

            How many decades ago was that? The current goveremnt is cutting the number of people who work on flood prevention during a pretty bad flood. Something of that scale and ambition is completely beyond them (unless you can proves it meets the 8/1 rule of course).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              hopefully the cuts that the terrible current gov are doing will reduce the EA to one that is smaller than America's

          2. Ian Michael Gumby

            @AC

            You do realize without the US and the lend lease act... you would haven't had the opportunity to 'rescue' scientists not to mention that many were already living in the US.

            You do remember that little science project going on under the bleachers at the University of Chicago?

            The one contribution that the UK could have made was the jet engine back in the late 30's.

            Oh wait. British Government shot that one down.

            1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects
              Facepalm

              A stunning lack of history

              The lend lease idea wasn't much of an idea as far as rescuing scientists went.

              What you might have mentioned, had you the smarts, was that it wasn't a good idea to be found holding a silly bits of paper at an English airport. I wonder what he thought he was doing with that?

              I can't quite get it in my head.

              At the very least he could have just e-mailed the password to himself.

              I mean... I mean... well I mean... I mean... I mean... I don't believe it... I mean... well... I mean...

              1. Ian Michael Gumby

                @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects Re: A stunning lack of history

                Wow.

                You really lack an understanding of the world history. What do they teach you in school these days?

                The Lend Lease act allowed the American Government to purchase munitions and arms and give them to the Brits and Allies so that they could hold off the Germans. If this didn't happen... Germany could have invaded the UK.

                The jet engine was a 'simultaneous' discover between a Brit and an Italian. With the Brit's engine a better design. The British government shot down his idea...

                The real invention that helped save the day was the Turbocharged Rolls engine that they mated with the P-51 Mustang.

                The point was that if the UK surrendered to Germany, you wouldn't have rescued anyone... Also my point was that the bulk of the scientists who were involved in the bomb project were already in the US prior to the start of WWII.

                1. Mad Mike

                  Re: @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects A stunning lack of history

                  @Ian Michael Gumby.

                  "Wow.

                  You really lack an understanding of the world history. What do they teach you in school these days?"

                  Well, I was taught to be able to read, write and talk in english, whereas it's quite clear from your first sentence that you weren't!!

                  "The Lend Lease act allowed the American Government to purchase munitions and arms and give them to the Brits and Allies so that they could hold off the Germans. If this didn't happen... Germany could have invaded the UK."

                  So, you mean the USA saw a money making opportunity and took it rather than actually coming over and helping to defend us. 'Gave them to the Brits'? Rubbish. As the name suggests, we actually paid for them and were doing so for many decades after the end of WWII.

                  "The jet engine was a 'simultaneous' discover between a Brit and an Italian. With the Brit's engine a better design. The British government shot down his idea..."

                  Strangely, the first patent for a gas turbine to power an aircraft was taken out by a Frenchman in 1921, a full 7 years before Whittle presented his ideas to his superiors.

                  "The real invention that helped save the day was the Turbocharged Rolls engine that they mated with the P-51 Mustang."

                  The Rolls Royce Merlin (and other derivatives) certainly did a lot as well. No question of that. If a film ever comes out of Hollywood on its creation and use, I'm sure it will have been renamed the Pratt and Whitney Merlin or some other US company. After all, can't pretend the US hasn't invented everything. You do seem to have bypassed the total lie presented by Hollywood in claiming an American got the first Enigma.

                  "The point was that if the UK surrendered to Germany, you wouldn't have rescued anyone... Also my point was that the bulk of the scientists who were involved in the bomb project were already in the US prior to the start of WWII."

                  And if the UK had surrendered to Germany, how long would it have been before the US did? Would the US have held out against both Germany and Japan? Anyway, if you'd actually read anything about WWII, you would know that the UK had no intention of ever surrendering. Germany would have had to invade and subdue and plans were in place to prevent a successful invasion and wage a covert war for years if it did happen. You only have to research the area between the south coast and London to see all the defences in place and how they would have been used to prevent an invasion.

                2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Stop

                  Re: IMG Re: @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects A stunning lack of history

                  "....Germany could have invaded the UK...." You were doing so well, right up until that howler! Hitler lacked both the means and the will to invade the British Isles. The point at which he could have possibly successfully invaded Britain was right after Dunkirk, when the BEF were still unloading and the RAF was still getting ready for him. But Hitler didn't actually have a plan of what he was going to do after defeating France. And he had to tidy up France first anyway, which gave the British Army and RAF a few weeks respite. By the time he kicked off the Battle of Britain it was too late. And his Kriegsmarine (who would have had to carry the Panzers across the Channel) was too weak to face the Royal Navy without the Luftwaffe winning the BoB, so he instead chose the option of trying to starve Britain into defeat by U-boat war and instead went off to attack his former allie Stalin (after a detour to the Balkans to save Mussolini from humiliation in Greece). The Greeks (with some assistance from the Brits) held up Hitler for just long enough that his eventual drive into Russia was stopped before he could take Moscow, condemning the Wehrmacht to a long war of attrition in the East they could never win.

                  Even if Hitler had managed to invade Britain, it would not have meant the surrender of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or any of the other countries of the British Empire. Hitler simply did not have a plan for defeating the Empire, he simply assumed the UK would sue for peace if he knocked France out of the War.

            2. Mad Mike

              Re: @AC

              @ Ian Michael Gumby

              "You do realize without the US and the lend lease act... you would haven't had the opportunity to 'rescue' scientists not to mention that many were already living in the US."

              Ah yes. The usual tripe from Americans over how they saved the world during WWII. Why don't you mention WWI and claim all the glory there as well? If Britain had fallen during WWII, it is very questionable as to whether the USA could have held out against the might of Germany and Japan together. I hate to p**s on your usual American parade, but the USA didn't defeat anyone alone. There were a considerable number of non-American (as in British and Commonwealth) troops fighting in all theatres of the war and it was the COMBINED efforts of all that won the war, not the USA alone.

              I realise that Hollywood (amongst others) love to claim every single thing was achieved by the USA (capture of an Enigma machine for instance), but large chunks of it are actually fantasy. One of the reasons why the USA is hated over large areas of the world, is the self-righteous, overbearing attitude of some of its inhabitants and the way they try to lord it over everybody. Someday they will grow up enough to realise this isn't doing them any favours.

              "You do remember that little science project going on under the bleachers at the University of Chicago?"

              Yes indeed. However, that was quite a long way removed from a working atom bomb, hence the Manhattan project. Many countries contributed to that project in all sorts of ways with all sorts of knowledge. Chances are, it would have happened a lot later if only the USA had been involved. By the way, why do you think it was based on the USA?

              "The one contribution that the UK could have made was the jet engine back in the late 30's.

              Oh wait. British Government shot that one down."

              Given what happened on the battle fields of Europe especially, I would have thought the development of the tank was a pretty big contribution from the UK. In fact, if you read up about it, the USA used British and French tanks during WWI!!

              1. Ian Michael Gumby

                @ Mad Mike ... Re: @AC

                I just wonder what they taught you in school.

                Without the Americans, you had Dunkirk. What does that tell you.

                With out the Americans, you lacked the resources for the long haul. So too did Germany.

                Germany could have taken Europe and held it, except that he couldn't also contain the Russians.

                What Russia did was sacrifice their Western cities and moved their industrial production further east. This made it difficult for the Germans to knock out their ability to produce weapons so they could fight.

                The US?

                1) You would need a 4 engine bomber from Europe to strike at the Eastern Seaboard of the US. Germany built 2 engine bombers to strike closer targets.

                2) US had all the raw materials needed to produce weapons as well as factories across the nation.

                (Look at a map and learn geography. The US is really a big country. It would take a train over 3 days to cross the US. How long does it take a train to go the length of the UK Island? ) [Talking 40's tech]

                3) Man power. Yes, we were fighting on two fronts. Bailing the British Empire out on both sides of the world. Didn't see the Brits bombing Tokyo. Did I miss something?

                If we want to look at British victories? El Alamein. That was the most strategic victories and the only one where you can give sole credit to the Brits. Note that I don't include the air battle over Britain, but I guess I should include it.

                In terms of the 'tank', Lancelot de Mole was an Australian. And of course the British Government shot him down repeatedly too. That was WW I and after the war, the Germans advanced the tech, as did the Russians with sloped armor. So again to my point about the jet engine, you can add the tank to yet another wasted blunder by the British Military. ;-)

                Ooops! (I'd love to do this all day... but I have a day job.)

                Ok, and to be clear, as much as I love pointing out the blunders and lack of imagination on the part of the British Government, that doesn't mean that the Brits as a whole haven't done much in terms of providing advancements in tech. They have. I just started poking fun of the Brit who posted how thanks to them, they saved the scientists who were responsible for the bomb. And that just isn't true.

                1. Mad Mike

                  Re: @ Mad Mike ... @AC

                  @Ian Michael Gumby.

                  It's amazing just how far 'US' history varies from the rest of the world.

                  "Without the Americans, you had Dunkirk. What does that tell you."

                  Well, the Americans had Pearl Harbour!! What a great victory that was!! Everyone had successes and failures. So what.

                  "With out the Americans, you lacked the resources for the long haul. So too did Germany."

                  If we both lacked the resources, then it would have stopped at a stalemate!! Sounds like you're suggesting the Americans added resources and therefore extended it!!

                  "Germany could have taken Europe and held it, except that he couldn't also contain the Russians."

                  Maybe. Certainly opening up the eastern front was a mistake. However, whether Germany could have taken the UK is a question. Of course, once Europe was taken, he might have been able to then take on the Russians.

                  "1) You would need a 4 engine bomber from Europe to strike at the Eastern Seaboard of the US. Germany built 2 engine bombers to strike closer targets."

                  In general true. However, I'm sure 4 engined bombers wouldn't have been beyond their ability when they had a need. After all, they were well ahead of anyone else in many areas of science and technology....e.g. V2.

                  "2) US had all the raw materials needed to produce weapons as well as factories across the nation."

                  Due to the 'empire', the UK potentially had more raw materials and factories all over the world etc. We could also call on soldiers from other countries as well.

                  "3) Man power. Yes, we were fighting on two fronts. Bailing the British Empire out on both sides of the world. Didn't see the Brits bombing Tokyo. Did I miss something?"

                  Didn't see the Americans fighting in North Africa either. Did I miss something? Again, like everything else, it made sense for countries to do what they could, where they could. By saying 'Bailing the British Empire out', you are simply justifying my earlier comments about pompous, patronising Americans. Yes, America fought in both Europe and the Pacific, but so did the British. We had a huge number of troops in the Pacfic theatre as well. At least we didn't manage to loose a large amount of our fleet at Pearl!!

                  "If we want to look at British victories? El Alamein. That was the most strategic victories and the only one where you can give sole credit to the Brits. Note that I don't include the air battle over Britain, but I guess I should include it."

                  And I guess there are far more American victories where you can give sole credit to the Americans? Not really. It was a joint effort by many countries in almost all battles.

                  "In terms of the 'tank', Lancelot de Mole was an Australian. And of course the British Government shot him down repeatedly too. "

                  And? Most of your space programme was based on a certain German, but you'll still take credit for it!!

                  "Ooops! (I'd love to do this all day... but I have a day job.)"

                  You surprise me.

                  " I just started poking fun of the Brit who posted how thanks to them, they saved the scientists who were responsible for the bomb."

                  I don't think they said this. They said some of the scientists were British (and other nationalities). In other words, not all American. And how exactly were they saved? As far as I know (and you've said as much), they were mostly working in America at the time.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @ Mad Mike ... @AC

                    You know in my first post all i was really trying to show that we did have our own scientific minds at the time who would have created a working nuclear program for us & that should the need ever arise for us to do things on our own again then i am sure we would be capable of managing it

                    Neither did i say we saved every scientist who worked on the manhattan project but we did help move some of them from europe to the US for the project, greatly speeding up its completion, all of which is historical record. And to forestall any complaining about the 'key sceintists' bit, i'd like to say that i personally think all invovled were key scientists after all you dont collect a bunch if idiots for such a project.

                    So the assertion that was made that we are only part of the nuclear club because the US let us join is clearly false & brits are clearly capable should the need arise of doing whatever they set their minds to, even if the current political lot are a bunch of spineless cowards i dont believe that description applies to all brits

                    now how about we all take a chill pill ?

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "... determined to knock the UK's ability to do anything ..."

            At the rate things are deteriorating across the planet, it won't be too much longer before we'll be able to celebrate those great UK achievements when the weapons are used in anger.

            /sarcasm off.

        2. MrXavia

          the UK only uses trident missiles, the warheads are home grown last time I checked..

          1. Richard Taylor 2

            and the electronics, guidance system, software - oh dear. Great cooperation, but do not be naive!

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Stop

          "Given that without the USA we'd have no deterrent..."

          Um... yes we would. We had a serviceable nuclear deterrent prior to the US-UK agreement in '58, and it would no doubt have continued to develop had our disclosure of a Teller-Ulam fusion weapon design to the Americans not shown them that we fully intended to proceed on our own, at which point politics and economics took over.

          1. James 51

            I am not harking back to what was and what might have been now if only. I was refering directly to us replacing trident on our own now. The UK cannot on its own today develop a creditable submarine based continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. It would take more time and more money than any UK government would be will to invest to redevelop the technology we would need to insource. We could argue back and forth about this but we are straying somewhat from the topic at hand.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Mushroom

        France

        EU ....

      3. JonP

        We have a nuclear deterrent for two reasons:

        The USSR.

        It makes us seem important.

        FTFY

      4. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        re: We have a nuclear deterrent for two reasons.

        France

        To get to sit with the big boys at the UN

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Information obtained illegally by GCHQ.

  4. Ross K Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Funny How Times Change Innit

    In 1977, a journalist called Mark Hosenball got himself in a spot of trouble for revealing the existence of GCHQ. At his deportation hearing Lord Denning said " In some parts of the world national security has on occasions been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England." Just as well he's not alive to see how things turned out...

    1. Rikkeh

      Re: Funny How Times Change Innit

      This would be the same Lord Denning who refused to hear allegations of police brutality in court as they would undermine faith in the justice system if proven correct. And the same one who didn't want ethnic minorities to serve on juries.

      Denning was a great champion of liberty and justice but only for those he saw as the right sort. I suspect that he would have been absolutely fine with the state coming down on a foreigner without an NUJ card.

      1. Ross K Silver badge

        Re: Funny How Times Change Innit

        This would be the same Lord Denning who refused to hear allegations of police brutality in court as they would undermine faith in the justice system if proven correct. And the same one who didn't want ethnic minorities to serve on juries.

        Blacks. He felt blacks shouldn't serve on juries.

        He didn't have much time for the Irish either; he thought the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four should have hanged.

        The bloke was born in 1899 after all. The comments he made in the 1970s and 1980s about blacks or Irish would have been representative of the views of a large section of society at the time. Using some simple maths I can hazard a guess that he was in his 70s or 80s at the time these views of his were aired. Old people aren't renowned for their enlightened views, now or then. You should hear what my grandad thinks of muslims or asians - I hope he never meets a muslim asian or his head will explode.

        In any event, that's not what the article is about. It's about anti-terror laws being misused, and my comment about his comment stands...

    2. Warm Braw

      Re: Funny How Times Change Innit

      It would be wrong to infer from those words that Denning cared for liberty in any way.

      Denning said in his Hosenball judgment of Home Secretaries: "They have never interfered with the liberty or the freedom of movement of any individual except where it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the state." Of the Home Secretary at the time, he said: "He is answerable to Parliament as to the way in which he did it and not to the courts here."

      In other words, he was arguing that the courts have no role in determining whether "security grounds" are valid or invalid and that it's a decision entirely for the executive. He would have been all in favour of this decision, especially given his apparent belief that Home Secretaries can do no wrong.

      More apposite would be the dissenting opinion of Lord Atkin in Liversidge v Anderson - a case which turned on whether security considerations were valid in someone's wartime internment without explanation. The case essentially turned on the basis of whether "security" could be defined at the unchallenged discretion of a government minister simply asserting he had "reasonable cause to believe" a risk existed. Atkin said:

      "I know of only one authority, which might justify the suggested method of construction. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'. 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be the master, that's all.' After all this long discussion, the question is whether the words 'If a man has' can mean 'If a man thinks he has'. I have an opinion that they cannot and the case should be decided accordingly."

      Atkin's opinion was dissenting. The majority of judges decided that it was not for courts to interfere in matters of national security as they did not have access to the classified information on which the executive decision had been made (see the pattern??).

      Dennings judgment in the Hosenball appeal was considered unusual in that it followed the majority judgment in Liversidge v Anderson at a time in which it had largely been discredited.

      In short, Denning was asserting the existence of a freedom, but declining to have any part in upholding it. But he was good at that.

      1. Ross K Silver badge

        Re: Funny How Times Change Innit

        In other words, he was arguing that the courts have no role in determining whether "security grounds" are valid or invalid and that it's a decision entirely for the executive. He would have been all in favour of this decision, especially given his apparent belief that Home Secretaries can do no wrong.

        Judicial deference?

        Anyway those were the days before ECHR and the Human Rights Act.

        1. Warm Braw

          Re: Funny How Times Change Innit

          >Anyway those were the days before ECHR

          The ECHR dates from 1953. It might not have been incorporated into UK law until 1998, but its basic principles were hardly unknown. Even to Lord Denning. And you can't use judicial deference as an excuse for Denning's judgment in the case of the Birmingham Six who were suing the police for being beaten into confessions:

          "If the six men win, it will mean . . . that the convictions were erronoeous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would either have to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal . . . This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say it cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

          That's not deference, that's abnegation of the law itself. The only defence for this opinion is to say that other judges agreed with him. That may lessen the case against Denning, but only by ratcheting up the case against judges in general.

  5. Miek
    Big Brother

    "has been ruled to be legal by a British judge." -- What a surprise, almost as surprising as the claim "We did nothing wrong" after executing an Innocent Brazilian Electrician in Stockwell Tube Station.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not to mention the numerous breaches of the constutional rights of UK citizens by the state police.

      1. Woodnag

        That's not actually possible...

        ...since the UK doens't have a constitution. And Theresa May is proposing UK withdraws from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) after the next election, 'snot looking so good is it?

        1. Grant Mitchell

          Re: That's not actually possible...

          "...since the UK doens't have a constitution."

          Better go update wikipedia then.

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

          1. Ross K Silver badge

            Re: That's not actually possible...

            Better go update wikipedia then.

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

            Well if wikipedia says it, it must be true.

            Show me a .gov.uk site with the full text of the "British Constitution" that you claim exists, or you have FAILED.

            You do have rights, which come from a lot of different places - case law statute, the EU. But you don't have a single document - a constitution - a bill of rights - which lists all of your individual rights from start to finish.

            1. John H Woods Silver badge

              Re: That's not actually possible...

              You do have rights, which come from a lot of different places - case law statute, the EU. But you don't have a single document - a constitution - a bill of rights - which lists all of your individual rights from start to finish.

              This seems to say:

              (1) a constitution is a bill of rights (in a single document)

              (2) the UK doesn't have a bill of rights (in a single document)

              (3) therefore the UK doesn't have a constitution.

              The problem is that premise 1 is false. The equation of a constitution with a single document comprising a bill of rights is entirely your own invention. Although such a document might correctly be called 'a constitution' you haven't demonstrated that the only thing that can be called a constitution is such a document.

              1. dogged

                Re: That's not actually possible...

                > (2) the UK doesn't have a bill of rights (in a single document)

                Sure we do.

                http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: That's not actually possible...

                  Which interestingly enough is a very important document in the foundation of American consitutional rights.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Facepalm

              Re: That's not actually possible...

              > Show me a .gov.uk site with the full text of the "British Constitution" that you claim exists, or you have FAILED.

              Even if such a thing existed, do you really think our current fascist overlords would countenance such a thing as advertising it on official literature?

              1. Ross K Silver badge
                Alien

                Re: That's not actually possible...

                Even if such a thing existed, do you really think our current fascist overlords would countenance such a thing as advertising it on official literature?

                The great thing about an unwritten constitution is that you can make it up as you go along...

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That's not actually possible...

                Even if such a thing existed, do you really think our current fascist overlords would countenance such a thing as advertising it on official literature?

                It appears it has been as actively and aggressively suppressed as the existence of the London Underground Customer Charter Refund, which was removed from sight no more than 2 years after its implementation (yet still exists)..

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That's not actually possible...

                "Even if such a thing existed, do you really think our current fascist overlords would countenance"

                Much as I dislike the current lot in power, they're an awful lot better than Brown's mob, most of whom seem to still be in nice cushy jobs despite have screwed-up royally in so many different ways ..

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: That's not actually possible...

              You do have rights, which come from a lot of different places - case law statute, the EU. But you don't have a single document - a constitution - a bill of rights - which lists all of your individual rights from start to finish.

              What a revealing post, one in which the author shows not only that he believes a constitution can only exist if it's written down as one document, but then goes on to reveal he doesn't even know which documents do exist.

              Important documents at that, I suppose it's to be expected that anyone who was claiming there was no constitution wouldn't know there is indeed an English Bill of Rights.

            4. Connor

              Re: That's not actually possible...

              Does any country have that? Even the US has many, many amendments to their original document and it is just 200 years old, the Magna Carta is 800 years old, the Bill of Rights 300 years old.

              I'm guessing only nations recently ruled by facist dictators have such a document.

            5. Vic

              Re: That's not actually possible...

              > Show me a .gov.uk site with the full text of the "British Constitution" that you claim exists, or you have FAILED

              The UK not having a single written constitution, that's clearly an impossible task. But if you take a look at this judiciary.gov.uk page, you'll see the following text :-

              The United Kingdom, famously and almost uniquely, does not have a constitution that is contained in a written constitutional instrument. Its constitution is to be found in the statutes passed by Parliament and in the common law, the law developed over the centuries in the decisions of the courts.

              So it's clear from the above that the UK *does* have a constitution - just not a single docuemt we can call "the constitution document".

              HTH

              Vic.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's not actually possible...

          The UK does have a constituion, and under it citizens are guaranteed certain rights... or at least they're meant to be, unfortunately our politicians, spooks, and police don't seem to be aware of that.

          Interestingly enough our many of constitutional rights are the same rights vast swathes of the world inherited from us when they were part of the empire, and chose to retain when they suceded the empire.

        3. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: That's not actually possible...

          The UK doesn't have a constitution? Dear Spaghetti Monster ... I've been teaching my constitutional law students all wrong for the past umpteen years! That A.V. Dicey was a lying bastard ...

      2. Ross K Silver badge

        The UK doesn't have a constitution, so a citizen doesn't have any constitutional rights.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crookey Blair has a lot to answer for.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      TOO RIGHT!

      Thank fuck he's been replaced by the upstanding Mr. Cameron! Dave's probably thinking about undoing all the evil socialist crap right now!!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Crookey Blair has a lot to answer for.

      Ah, yes - here's some more..

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        "Mr Blair's office issued a statement later, saying: "This was Mr Blair simply giving informal advice over the phone."

        I suppose it would be too much to hope Mr Snowden is holding some juicy snippets on this.

        But wouldn't it be lovely. And timely.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          The sooner someone finds something to arrest Blair on, and then has the balls to do it, the happier I'll be. Thatcher got away lightly by sliding into dementia* - we shouldn't let that happen to a PM worse than her.

          *I'm sorry if I offend anyone with that - I almost offend myself with it - but my dislike of her makes me regard being able to forget what she did as a lucky escape.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Sir

            I'm not a Thatcher apologist, since she got a lot of things wrong*, but you only have to take a look at the state of the country** just prior to her becoming PM to know that having a strong (if a little dictatorial) leader can be a good thing - especially when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and unpopular decisions need to be made.

            There are arguments to be made both for and against Maggie.

            Blair has no such positive side as far as I'm concerned

            *Bloody Sunday springs to mind

            **Lots of strikes, power cuts, the 3-day week, high interest rates. etc.

  7. Desidero

    1 file

    From the various reports, the written password was to 1 file - whether that file was important we don't know, but they seem to have used that as 1 of their loopholes to claim Miranda irresponsible with confidential material. (not that the US & UK "intelligence" services were any more responsible with same info)

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Joke

      Re: 1 file

      Since most journo's (El Reg excluded - maybe) are techno-dumb-arses, it was probably a file with all the other passwords in it.

  8. Upright

    Spooks being spoked by other spooks that were spooked

    Do you suspect, and I am thinking aloud with my usual tin hat when it comes to data security, intelligence and 'terrorism', that Dr Gareth Williams the MI6 mathematicians that was found in a bag, with the heating at full blast in August, may have leaked something he should not have?

  9. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    The claimant was not a journalist

    So what?

    Is it only official journalists allowed to report on the government now?

    Whats an official journalist?

    Do you have to work for the state broadcasting agency or just Murdoch?

  10. NP-Hardass

    Oh... So that's how it works!

    "But he was acting in support of Mr Greenwald's activities as a journalist. I accept that the Schedule 7 stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom, though no such interference was asserted by the claimant at the time."

    It's only illegal if you tell the government at the time they do it, that what they are doing is illegal. That makes too much sense.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Oh... So that's how it works!

      Of only they had stopped and questioned him using anti-espionage legislation then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

      As it is, it seems like the Judge has ruled that, since they found some secret stuff, the stop and search was justified.

      I wasn't* aware that legality of state operatives was only determined retrospectively based on their success.

      Edited because I realised this would be a stupid statement.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh... So that's how it works!

        I wasn't aware that legality of state operatives was only determined retrospectively based on their success.

        No - if officers have a suspicion of a crime they can investigate. It's fair to say that in this case there were grounds for suspicion, and you cannot magically acquire the admittedly small protection a journalist allows by claiming you work for one without a shred of formal evidence - otherwise anyone would use that excuse.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    European supreme court

    When has the European supreme court ever concerned itself with state/citizen relations? Shouldn't a journalist know better?

    (I ask this fully aware of the number of times this fine publication has stated that the European court of human rights is an EU institution...)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Terrorism is the new communism ..

    I suspect that the real reason "terrorism" has become the default excuse for the suppression of dissent is that communism is no longer available. ie: Hey, we're bombing your villages in order to save you from the communism/islamofascism menace ..

  13. NP-HARD
    Trollface

    Godwin's Law

    Speaking of laws unbroken... Has anyone seen those Nazis mentioned yet?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Godwin's Law

      yes, I mentioned Brownites earlier ..

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    More proof, if you needed it...

    That these anti-terrorism laws really need to be dialed back. I have no problem with anti-terrorism laws being used on actual terrorists, or sexual predator laws being used on predators, or financial fraud laws being used on a crooked financier. But it seems almost inevitably that these laws get twisted by intelligence and law enforcement, and we end up with people who were never involved in terrorism getting detained in airports or guys getting busted for watching Lolita on TV. The result is fear and contempt for the law.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Pint

      Re: More proof, if you needed it...

      "I have no problem with anti-terrorism laws being used on actual terrorists"

      Not trying to bust yer nuts or anything, but what you would define as 'terrorist' may not be exactly the same was what the vested interests class as 'terrorist'.

      Accepting this, your statement is incomplete, since it should also mention a healthy skepticism towards their definition.

      Just sayin'.

      Terrorism - the unofficial or unauthorized* use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      *by whom we may ask? Therein lies the problem.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More proof, if you needed it...

        Terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

        NOT

        "Terrorism - the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

        There is a significant difference.

      2. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: More proof, if you needed it...

        Terrorism - the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

        Interesting, by that definition state-sponsored terrorism cannot possibly exist, because sponsorship is clear authorisation, and thus such acts could only be war or violent government repression, such as in Syria and the Ukraine.

        Where is that particular definition from?

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: More proof, if you needed it...

          "Where is that particular definition from?"

          Curiously enough I just typed 'definition terrorism' into google. I wonder if Google are now sponsoring NewSpeak?

  15. Technological Viking
    Joke

    Hilarity when properly interpreted

    I can't get over these two things:

    The information he was carrying described the actions and policy of "the government". If he was found to have been carrying information contrary to "the law", does that mean that those actions and policies of the government violate the law?

    The fact that the united western governments were able to get the information out of him is being used as proof that he is unable to keep such information out of the hands of terrorists. So are the suits admitting that they're terrorists?

  16. MooseNC

    I think the term is spouse, not lover.

    Unless you also refer to Samantha Cameron as David Cameron's lover, then it's alright.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    information useful to Al Qaeda

    Greenwald has released huge amounts of Snowden's information via the Guardian and other places. The government, NSA and GCHQ tell us this information is of massive value to terrorists.

    So then.... where are all the mass attacks, the carnage, the end of the world? I've just looked down my street and there isn't a terrorist in sight, or any mushroom clouds, or bodies lying everywhere. And Al Qaeda have known that the NSA is spying on Facebook and Angry Birds for **months** now.

    None of these surveillance schemes were ever about terrorists - it was always about mass surveillance of the general public.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Black Helicopters

      Re: information useful to Al Qaeda

      The terrorists are hiding under your bed it seems, or perhaps in your closet. They only come out when its dark.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: information useful to Al Qaeda

        If I put a towel over my head will they cease to exist ?

        Or would that make me one of them?

    2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      Re: information useful to HaQ aeda

      Since the News of the World packed up and moved to Kiev it stands to reason what the NSA were doing was slanted towards a fold in the curtain.

      Does anyone know what Tory B Liar was doing in Venezuela recently?

    3. DropBear
      Trollface

      Re: information useful to Al Qaeda

      Don't be silly, all that and worse would certainly be happening indeed if only the spooks wouldn't still be watching over us all, day by day making sure it doesn't. I mean, clearly. Do I really need a </sarcasm> here, or is it obvious enough...?

    4. hugh wanger

      Re: information useful to Al Qaeda

      "it was always about mass surveillance of the general public."

      To what end?

      Seriously, for what motive?

      This notion that "the man" is watching your every move is so childishly naïve.

      Do you really have the arrogance to believe you are that interesting?

      Whilst you are picking your nose?

      Frapping when the Missus goes out to Tesco?

      Shouting at the ref on TV when football is on?

      Humans are mostly boring. Doing the same thing, as we've always done.

      Same holes, same goals.

      What is this mass surveillance and why does it alarm you so?

      Have you see evidence that David Miranda was "conditioned" and forced to not vote UKIP?

      60-70 million people, watched over by a relatively small number of people.

      Working really hard to stop anyone from religious loons, people with a cause, and just general mentalists hurting innocent people. A hard, boring job that means you are safe to sit their behind your keyboard and type in your foolishness.

      You only have to watch Road Wars on TV to realise what a feral bunch of crazy maniacs exist in the world. Or watch the ID channel on murder documentaries and watch what other humans do to each other. _That_ is what those forces are trying to help protect against. And terrorists do operate a certain way, and if Snowden and Greenwald ( a massive self publicist) have made their jobs harder then they deserve all the strife they are likely to get. We all know governments hold data on us all. I don't care. Its not important. Its what they do with the collective knowledge that counts, and so far there is no evidence they are using it control our minds (its not 1984).

  18. Duke2010

    Considering the files were well encrypted there is be better ways to send the files then on a plane with your boyfriend. He might as well walk though customs with a target on his head.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, the outcome of this, so far means that...

    Anti-terror legislation TRUMPS Article 5 European convention of Human Rights.

    1984 was 30 years ago, can still feel that boot on my face, stamping harder than ever.

    1. teebie

      Re: So, the outcome of this, so far means that...

      you should consider wearing a thicker mask, not one of them flimsy Guy Fawkes things.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anti-terrorism

    From now on, whenever you see the phrase "anti-terrorism", replace it with "political dissent".

    The (inappropriate) application of anti-terrorism laws in the UK will make perfect sense then.

    Cameron and May have zero interest in transparency or accountability.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Grandad, who won the war on terror"?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like