Source: The Guardian
quote: UK Destroys Hard Drives, Seize Laptops...
quote: ...the recent developments in the case of U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) secrets leaker Edward Snowden remind us how far the U.S.'s freedoms are, even after decades of efforts by some Americans to erode the Constitution.
quote: ...following the initial publication of a partial analysis NSA files.
quote: The publication points out that such seizures would likely be far too embarrassing -- and likely not allowed in the first place due to their illegality in the U.S.
quote: ...from a exposé reporting perspective...
quote: ...strong legal protects are no longer as crucial...
quote: Most recently UK agents -- likely with the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain's NSA counterpart -- detained a Guardian employee...
quote: ...had been serving as a research on the Snowden documents...
quote: During the detention he had his laptop...
quote: how about you have someone proof-read these articles before you publish them?
quote: Man what an asshole...Nobody likes a grammar Nazi on the Internet, nobody.
quote: Right because you have contributed so much to this site monetarily, as we all have, I'm sure Jason can go right out and hire an editor!
quote: UK Destroys Hard Drives, Seize Laptops...Plural vs singular. Pick one (it's the title for Pete's sake)
quote: Where's the end of the statement?
quote: The image of the the two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just about sums up how out of touch and ludicrous some parts of the security system are in the face of modern communication technology.
quote: I think that we must remain focussed on the very important real issue which is that legislation giving unusually draconian powers to the security forces to detain people at airports, which it was argued were required to prevent imminent possible terrorist attacks, were in this case actually used against someone who clearly has no connection to terrorism and which no member of the security forces or the UK government has ever suggested has any connection to terrorist activity.
quote: I understand the need to give legally defined powers to the security forces to act decisively when it is suspected an imminent threat is looming but once in place the actual use of such powers must be monitored very closely in order to prevent the sort casual extension of those powers into non-terrost areas of investigation as seen in this case.
quote: Where was that again.
quote: And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
quote: Lets say you are working for a top secret agency in the government. You know through your high level clearance rights that your agency is illegally detaining citizens and/or physically harming them. You would not say anything about it because it is illegal. Is my understanding correct?
quote: There are two types of logical error that may be involved in appeals to force:Some appeals to force may be appeals to the consequences of a belief. What sets the appeal to force apart from other appeals to consequences is that the bad consequences appealed to?that is, the use of force?will be caused by the arguer. Attempts to change people's minds by threats of punishment are appeals to consequences, since the bad consequences appealed to are not consequences of what is believed, but of the belief itself. As such, they are irrelevant to the truth-value of the belief.However, because it is impossible to read a person's mind, the attempt to use force or threats to change minds is usually ineffective. Instead, threats are more commonly reasons to act, and as such can be good reasons to do so if the threat is plausible. People are sometimes intimidated into pretending to believe things that they don't, but this is not coming to believe something because of the fear of force. So, appeals to force which are appeals to consequence may fail one criterion of a logical fallacy, namely, that it be a common type of bad argument.When force or the threat of force is used to suppress the arguments of one side in a debate, that is a type of one-sidedness. Governments are always tempted to use police powers to prevent criticism of their policies, and totalitarian governments are frequently successful in doing so. Extremists use threats or actual violence to silence those who argue against them. Audience members "shout down" a debater whom they disagree with in order to prevent a case from being heard. This is, unfortunately, common enough to qualify as a logical fallacy.However, force or the threat of it is not an argument, which means that appealing to force is not a logical fallacy. Since hitting someone over the head with a stick is not an argument at all, a fortiori it is not a fallacious one. However, withholding relevant information can lead people into drawing false conclusions.For these reasons, calling the appeal to force a "logical fallacy" is misleading. More accurately, it is a logical boobytrap, that is, a way of tricking someone else into reasoning incorrectly .