For civil libertarians in the United States and England, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish the practices of our own governments and the countries that we routinely denounce as authoritarian. An example of this confusion can be found in the outrageous arrest of the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian writer who brought the Snowden disclosures to light and a leading voice for civil liberties in the world. David Miranda, who lives with Greenwald, was taken into custody when passing through London’s Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. He was held for nine hours and had his computer, cell phone and other equipment seized. Such stops can occur at the request of the National Security Agency and other agencies and are carried out under the abusive Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The case could also highlight possible surveillance of journalists in England and the United States.
The law allows police at airports, ports and border areas to stop, search, question and detain individuals for up to nine hours. Miranda, 28, was held obviously because he is the partner of Greenwald. Where 97% of people held under the law are held for less than an hour, they held Miranda for the full nine hours and confiscated his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
Miranda was reportedly in Berlin to deliver Snowden related documents and to pass other documents from Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, back to Greenwald. The use of a loved one for such a function is obviously dangerous and most journalists avoid such involvement since the partner would not necessarily be protected as journalists. The documents were stored on encrypted thumb drives. Greenwald says that the police informed him of an intent to arrest Miranda.
Notably, one defense might have been that Miranda was acting in a journalistic activity as a courier for Greenwald but Greenwald is quoted as saying that Miranda is not a journalist. The use of a loved one for such a job would create a dangerous ambiguity. However, it is also clear that the government is targeting a journalist and trying to obtain records of a journalist. Given the history of the Obama Administration in putting reporters under surveillance, there is a reasonable basis to suspect that wiretaps or other forms of surveillance have targeted Greenwald. How did they know to search the partner of Greenwald? I am surprised to see a non-journalist tasked with such a job if these accounts are true. However, these questions still remain as to whether the U.S. government is working with England to target journalistic records.
England has fewer protections for journalists, particularly under its controversial Crown laws. However, even the United States uses enhanced powers at borders and airports. The Supreme Court has adopted different rules governing such stops. The Metropolitan Police released a statement that “[h]olding and properly using intelligence gained from such stops is a key part of fighting crime, pursuing offenders and protecting the public.” The crime in this case would involve disclosures made by someone viewed as a whistleblower to a journalist. Many view Greenwald as protecting the public in performing his journalistic role. Even if Miranda was not viewed as a journalist as Greenwald appears to confirm, he would be viewed as a courier for a known journalist. Such couriers however are usually employees or contractors associated with the media. That difference may have encouraged this action by intelligence officials.
Most people are assuming the English were carrying out the demands of the NSA. Part of the motivation may be the search of the computer records and devices though the length of time has been denounced as harassment. Some members of Congress have called for Greenwald’s arrest. He is responsible for embarrassing a growing number of politicians, including President Obama and leading Democrats, who continue to be caught in false or misleading statements to the public. Unable to convince the public to simply embrace warrantless surveillance and demonize Snowden, the government appears to have adopted a scorched earth policy.
To add to the abuse, Miranda was denied a lawyer as authorities rifled through his computer files and belongings. Greenwald got the message: “[It] is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.” It certainly does, in my view, constitute an attack on the free press and raises the image of virtual hostage taking by the government.
The only thing missing is a few Guy Fawkes masks, “Finger” police, and the smiling face of Minister Peter Creedy to make the scene complete. “Schedule 7” even sounds like something that only Alan Moore could come up with.
What is most striking about Schedule 7 is how it is virtually without any standard or check on authority:
Interpretation
1(1)In this Schedule “examining officer” means any of the following—
(a)a constable,
(b)an immigration officer, and
(c)a customs officer who is designated for the purpose of this Schedule by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
(2)In this Schedule—
“the border area” has the meaning given by paragraph 4,
“captain” means master of a ship or commander of an aircraft,
“port” includes an airport and a hoverport,
“ship” includes a hovercraft, and
“vehicle” includes a train.
(3)A place shall be treated as a port for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to a person if an examining officer believes that the person—
(a)has gone there for the purpose of embarking on a ship or aircraft, or
(b)has arrived there on disembarking from a ship or aircraft.Power to stop, question and detain
2(1)An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
(2)This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a)he is at a port or in the border area, and
(b)the examining officer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3)This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).
(4)An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
My favorite part is the last line: “An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).”
The actions taken against Miranda were intended to send a message to Greenwald and other journalists that their families will not be protected from repercussions in such controversies. Indeed, the crude tactics conveyed a menacing message that the government is not concerned with public outcry or any notion of checks on its actions. You will note that no one in Congress has demanded to know if American officials were involved in this abusive action. Scotland Yard refused to answer any questions beyond confirmed that Miranda was held in custody. The message to citizens seems clear: Challenge the government at your own peril . . . and that of your loved ones.
Source: Guardian
Blouise,
“Not all intelligence officers can be talked into violating the dignity of a human being.”
But those who can will probably be the ones who are promoted in their agency.
Ozzie,
Wanting to see the material and having the right to see the material are two different things … is not that the government’s claim against Snowden?
Not knowing what Miranda possessed but wanting to, led the governments involved to take advantage of a lawyer-free zone established to catch terrorists.
Did they give one whit as to how deeply they were violating Miranda’s rights? Of course not for he was not an actual person but only a means to get to the persons they really want, Greenwald and Poitras.
They could have easily questioned him for an hour, confiscated his property, and sent him on his way but that would not have sent the message to Greenwald and the world they wanted to send. That would not have sent the message to future couriers they wanted to send.
The whole point was to violate Miranda’s dignity as a human being to the point that he feared for his freedom.
Listen up world, we will strip you of every ounce of human dignity you possess because we can. We will stick you in a room, deny you legal representation, question you for nine hours, threaten you with prison, and steal your personal belongings because we can. You will not be able to stop us and you will not be able to protect yourself or your family if we decide to go after them.
Even the Mafia had ethical standards that were higher than that.
Good lord, even the drug cartels hide the murdered family members during execution time.
Who else does it all publically so that a message can be sent to the world? Terrorists.
Not all Muslims can be talked into becoming terrorists. Not all intelligence officers can be talked into violating the dignity of a human being.
However, there are those who can. There were at least six of them present at Heathrow that day.
As long as we all believe that the govt spies are collecting everything on everybody, the govt doesn’t have to have any real facts to make “credible” accusations. Detaining DM may indicate they are looking for things they don’t know but desperately want to know, or are creating a nine-hour cover story wherein new “discoveries” were made, and/or they are hoping to turn David Miranda into an unwitting mole. I agree with SlingT- I would not trust my devices anymore; further, I might make sure I didn’t get chipped like a pet dog. (Get that new mole on your back removed.)
Obama’s Justice Department has petitioned the SCOTUS to allow warrantless searches of cell phones. Given the implications of the particular case in question, the petition is curious and may be a conundrum for the court. It is a drug deal case, and the phone in question is a basic flip phone, not a smart phone. Apparently, all the suspect phone has on it are stored caller ID numbers. Obviously, there is a large difference between that kind of phone and a smart phone with almost as much computing power as a desktop. Would the ruling be limited to flip phones? If this case results in a ruling generalizing to all phones, I see a serious problem. Another reason to keep your cell phone encrypted if at all possible. Or better yet, do what I do and only carry a flip phone with nothing on it.
Under the Fifth Amendment, investigators cannot force you to give them your password. On the other hand, in the UK under Schedule 7, you have to answer all their questions, and that means if they ask for your password, you have to give it to them.
Here is the story from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/
James, I agree that this can only be seen as intimidation. This goes straight to the top. Number 10 means Obama and his handlers ordered it. Just as the attempt to suppress the Guardian 1 month ago was as much a part of the intimidation as this detention. The NSA knows the info is widely distributed so the destruction of hard drives in the basement of the Guardian can only been seen as an act to silence that newspaper, and through them, the people.
Yes, it would be wonderful to see Grand Juries on all of it.
“Journalism is not terrorism.” -Rachel Maddow
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52797608
Three thoughts. After keeping Miranda for the maximum 9 hours, he was such an awful threat, they let him go, but not before taking his electronics, which is all they likely wanted.
Second, those who support this sort of baseless intrusion have called Miranda an “information mule.” This speaks to the continued — and only getting worse — outdated thinking that threatens our actual freedoms. Information is not drugs. It requires no mules. Is the internet still that new?
Third. we all know about it. That really lets the gas out of the intimidation factor, I have to say. They end up looking like scared bobbies scurrying over a stolen plum pie.
No one who leads us is qualified to do so.
It will take grand juries to make that abundantly clear.
Sling T.
Bingo. Same here about treating those devices as radioactive once they are returned.
“ET, phone home.”
David Miranda Set To Take Legal Action Against UK Over Detention
The Huffington Post
By Jack Mirkinson
Posted: 08/20/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/david-miranda-legal-action-uk-detention-glenn-greenwald_n_3784287.html
Excerpt:
Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda is set to take legal action against the British government over his nine-hour detention at Heathrow airport on Sunday.
The Guardian, which employs Greenwald and had paid for Miranda’s travel through Europe, said it was “supportive” of the move but was not leading it.
In a statement, Kate Goold, a lawyer from Bindmans, the law firm representing Miranda, said, “We are most concerned about the unlawful way in which these powers were used and the chilling effect this will have on freedom of expression.”
“…just the tip of a larger iceberg.” -Wyden, Udall Statement
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs
Wyden, Udall Statement on Reports of Compliance Violations Made Under NSA Collection Programs
Friday, August 16, 2013
Excerpt:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) issued the following statement regarding reports that the NSA has violated rules intended to protect Americans’ privacy thousands of times each year. Wyden and Udall are both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“The executive branch has now confirmed that the ‘rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans’ have been violated thousands of times each year. We have previously said that the violations of these laws and rules were more serious than had been acknowledged, and we believe Americans should know that this confirmation is just the tip of a larger iceberg.
“…just the tip of a larger iceberg.”
OS,
They would use the time to begin with taking an exact image of all device memory – they would be looking at every byte in hopes of something thought deleted or working memory snippets accidentally captured during file creation by an application.
Deep examination of the original devices for residuals – that’s why good scrubbing overwrites memory multiple times with random patterns.
They could fry the devices, but it might be better to infect them with some super-secret foo. Opening them up an inserting customized look-alike chips into the boards would be best.
I wouldn’t trust a device that had been out of my sight in such circumstances.
AP,
I listened to the translation of Mr. Miranda…. Apparently, they Did not ask anything about Mr. Miranda… They only asked about Glen Greenwald…. They seized all of his electronics…. Including Zip drives…. Flash drives and electronic games…. They held him for the full 9 hours that they could under English law…. Hmmmm… Uncle Sams actions would be approved by Uncle Adolphie….
Sling T.
They did not return Miranda’s stuff to him after the nine hours of detention. Under the law, they can keep it for a certain period of time; six additional hours or so. Of course, if he leaves the country before getting his stuff back, they have extra time to fiddle with the devices before shipping it to him. I would not be at all surprised if they ran his stuff through a high powered magnet before returning it. For example, an MRI machine will fry the innards of any digital device.
Greenwald gave the igPays in England and in AmeriKa a Miranda Warning of sorts. There is more to come out of the woodwork and the Stasi state in Britain and AmeriKa will be exposed. Clean underwear will not help the likes of Clapper The Liar. Greenwald probably loaded down his courier with Buster Keaton movies on those computer files. Hours of Jay Leno for them to watch and decipher. Aggh.
I think there is more than intimidation in this.
It could be that the spooks don’t knowthe full extent of what Snowden actually has. They would desperately want to know.
They don’t know how much of that he has revealed to Poitras/Greenwald.
They would want to know that too.
How many people know what exactly?
.
If a file is encrypted it doen’t matter if it’s moving via Net or courier – from a pure decryption point of view.
Moving by courier masks the volume of information being transmitted. The sizes and number of files can be clues. Individual files being moved around between parties under the same encryption per file would give the files ‘signatures’. It might be possible to track the same information across parties.
Moving via the Net exposes at least that much information – as well as locations and times of the end-points.
Taking Miranda’s devices would give a view of the files. The problem would be that the actual files of interest would be mixed in with a bunch of innocent files that are also encrypted.
If I were using a courier, I would alter the mix of ‘decoy/masking’ files somewhat on each transfer.
Moving by Net works against using a high volume of decoy files needed to mask the interesting files.
.
Remember that for example, the WikiLeaks password blown by David Leigh in his book was a phrase.
The disclosure was two-fold.
1) The actual password
2) The nature of the password. It holds a possible clue to the makeup of passwords by the same people. This could very significantly reduce a brute-force decryption exercise to being possible.
Greenwald is quite new to infosec. Snowden would not deal with him initially because of that. Poitras had to teach him.
What the spooks would have been trying to get out of Miranda – other than data files – would be …
– anything that indicated which files/devices were not his own personal boring stuff.
– anything that might give a clue as to the types of passwords that might be in use. Greenwald’s ‘fingerprints’ might be on any passwords that Miranda used on his own files/devices
– anything at all about Greenwald and Poitras – their habits, interests, etc. as well as any persons mutually known to them.
.
Even if Miranda told them nothing, it was still worth taking the devices.
Using up the full 9 hours gave them an easy way of trying for the rest.
“That we have not suffered a repeat of 9/11 justifies nothing.”
Exactly so.
Why should those that do not subscribe to the myth of American exceptionalism be held to the overbearing onslaught of our government’s imperial designs?
It’s quite simple to me: if the “quality” of my life is dependent on war by direct or other means I want no part in the endeavors. The world is not a zero-sum proposition.
As a supposed “capitalistic” country it’s quite amazing the money we’ve spent smoothing out the peaks and valleys of commerce while looking down a gun barrel pointed at some of the most impoverished countries in the world.
We have been at war with Afghanistan since 2001 — it is now 2013 — with Afghanistan!!! Can we stop now???
Yet most Americans only notice infraction of government when they learn that their personal correspondence has been recorded?
How quaint.
Hundreds of thousands killed since 2001, but “we” only get pissed off when “we” learn that the NSA has been recording all of “our” correspondence.
The fact that taps on OC-2/3 and greater links existed was known in 2005 through Mark Klein, an AT&T technician out of San Francisco. Yet, only a mere eight years later people get pissed off about it.
This country does have choice still — we can keep feeding the dogs of war, or we can call them back.
It’s pathetic that the lies of trillion dollar wars spanning decades is now only brought to cultural light due to individual concerns of privacy.
“Rusbridger says he spoke to senior Whitehall officials about this.
Q: Did this go straight to Number 10?
Yes, says Rusbridger.
Q: And they said destroy the material or give it back to them?
Yes, says Rusbridger. He told them that the Guardian had other copies of the material abroad. That is why the paper was prepared to comply with the demand for the UK version to be destroyed.”
The commenter above is confused because of the Miranda Rights issue created years ago by Carmen Miranda, and this guy’s rights, as Carmen’s grandson, to not be arrested and his property seized by the Thought Police of Hail Britainia.
Now another aspect of the discussion. Bob Dylan sang that You Don’t Have To Be A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows. The analogy to the First Amendment issues in AmeriKa are clear. There are many in Congress, and some on this blog, who think that only “Journalists” (spulled with a big J) are protected by the First Amendment. These people are confused and think that the Free Press Prong of the First Amendment is the only thing involved. Well there are other things involved with differing Prongs of the First. The Right To Blog is not spelled out in the First and nor is the right to contribute to an email or web comment on a blog. But the right to speak is protected by its own Prong. The right to assemble (at town square or in front of the state capital bldge is not defined) is protected, even in the Clouds. The right to speak and assemble to speak and to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances is protected by a Prong. And all of the Prongs protect human beings and their guide dogs when they tell the rest of us which way the wind is blowing.
“Kirsty Hughes, chief executive of Index on Censorship, has put out this statement following Alan Rusbridger’s revelations about how pressure from “shadowy Whitehall figures” led to the Guardian destroying hard drives in a basement.
Using the threat of legal action to force a newspaper into destroying material is a direct attack on press freedom in the UK. It is unclear which laws would have been used to force the Guardian to hand over its material but it is clear that the Snowden and NSA story is strongly in the public interest. Coming on the back of the detention of David Miranda, it seems that the UK government is using, and quite likely misusing, laws to intimidate journalists and silence its critics.”
From Guardian which has launched a set of lawsuits against their own govt. Where are our newpapers?
Miranda Rights VS. the Rights of Mr. Miranda
Anyway, it’s late. good morning. I’m going to bed.
Are we confused enough, already?