Print 25 comment(s) - last by The0ne.. on Aug 23 at 6:53 PM

  (Source: Warner Bros.)
The press isn't quite so free in the Queen's country

With the 250th anniversary of the United States of America's war to win its freedom from the oppressive British monarchy but a little more than a decade away, 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.

I. For Now Media is Ahead of Gov't Oppression, Thanks to Digital Tech

A recent piece in one of England's top newspapers, The Guardian, reveals that the publication -- which was the primary recipient of Mr. Snowden's trove of documents on classified spying efforts on law-abiding citizens -- has suffered numerous cases of harassment at the hands of UK secret police in recent months, following the initial publication of a partial analysis NSA files.

The report describes how UK authorities threatened to take the publication to court, and eventually settled with a forced destruction of the hard drives with the Snowden documents on them (of course The Guardian implies it had ample backup thumb drive and paper copies):

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.

Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age.

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.  In the U.S., reporters -- including those who do whistleblowing reporting related to the government -- are protected by the Constitution, which enshrines freedom of the press (for example the Obama administration received heavy pushback over its decision to spy on the Associated Press). In the UK there are some laws that protect the press, but overall if the government badly wants something, there's no such prime directive for members of the media to shield themselves with.

Destroying hard drives
UK agents destroyed The Guardian's hard drives after the Snowden files were published.
[Image Source: Corbis]

In the past, this would make the UK media much more weak and vulnerable from a exposé reporting perspective, however The Guardian raises an interesting point. In a digital era industrial country that allows free press, strong legal protects are no longer as crucial.  As long as the government stops short of charging reporters involved in such publications or forcing the shuttering of the publications themselves, they are stuck in a losing game of cat and mouse with the media.

II. Ubiquitous Surveillance Could Spell an End to the Free Press in the U.S., UK

Most recently UK agents -- likely with the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain's NSA counterpart -- detained a Guardian employee, David Miranda, at an airport for 8+ hours under the pretense that they were investigating a "terrorism" incident.  

Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda
Glenn Greenwald (left) and David Miranda [Image Source: Reuters]

Mr. Miranda, the boyfriend of Glenn Greenwald -- the primary reporter on the NSA story -- had been serving as a research on the Snowden documents and the public's reaction to them.  During the detention he had his laptop, smartphone, DVDs, and USB sticks seized and was forced to surrender his passwords to the devices.  However, The Guardian writes that the seizures were the failings of a weak and panicked government, unable to keep up with the empowerment of the digital era.  It remarks:

We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.

The GCHQ and NSA's common goal of ubiquitous surveillance threatens to be the high tech poison to this newfound digital freedom.  The Guardian reporter, Alan Rusbridger, writes:

The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes – and, increasingly, it looks like "when".

We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting – indeed, most human life in 2013 – leaves too much of a digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Snowden or say reporters should trust the state to know best (many of them in the UK, oddly, on the right) may one day have a cruel awakening. One day it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack.

That's a pretty powerful message.  And even in the U.S. -- where the press is safer -- it rings true, given the ongoing efforts of some judges and politicians to erode the protections of the Constitution.

Source: The Guardian

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: How silly was this
By JPForums on 8/21/2013 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
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.
Where was that again. I see the image of the drive being destroyed and the image of Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda. Didn't catch the image of the two security experts, but I'd love to see them so I know what you're talking about. Though going by your tone, I'm going to assume that it looked like a pointless waste of time (which it seems to have been).
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.
Bingo. Legislation should come with some type of clause of intent and limitation of scope. It should only be able to be applied to situations that both fall within the intent of the law and the scope for which it is given validity. Some would argue that this would leave potential crimes unpunished, but I would suggest that it would force law makers to do their jobs instead of relying on laws that were put into place for alternate purposes that are neither accurate nor adequate for what they are applied to.
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.
I would argue that the scope of this law should be limited to imminent threats. Any officer who detains someone without a present imminent threat would not be protected by this law. Further, the officer in question should be subject to the same proceedings and punishment as any other person who decides to detain someone illegally.

RE: How silly was this
By Tony Swash on 8/21/2013 6:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Where was that again.

The image was a mental one not an actual one :) It meant thinking about what these twits from GCHQ were doing made my head hurt.

It referred to the information in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of this article by the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.

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.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki