(The Plot Thickens: Greenwald's partner had thumb drives of info that were Snowdon's)

[applegrove]

Britain Detains the Partner of a Reporter Tied to Leaks

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0

"SNIP.............................


Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

A spokesman for the British Foreign Ministry said the episode was a “police matter” and would provide no further comment. Civil rights groups in Britain have criticized Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, accusing the authorities of using the provision to arbitrarily stop and detain travelers, particularly Muslims. The British Home Office has said it is reviewing the provision in an effort to address the concerns.

A lawyer for The Guardian in London was working on trying to understand what had happened, as were foreign-affairs officials for Brazil both in that country and in London, Mr. Greenwald said. He said that he received a call from the Brazilian foreign minister about 40 minutes after alerting the Brazilian government, and that the Brazilian authorities were outraged.

Sergio Danese, the under secretary for consular affairs at Brazil’s Foreign Ministry, said Brazil’s consul general and embassy officials in London had worked to resolve the situation. In a statement, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry expressed “grave concern” about the incident, which it said was “without justification” since there could be no “legitimate” accusations that Mr. Miranda fell under the Terrorism Act.

............................SNIP"

[morningfog]

1. Does that make it terrorism?

[applegrove]

3. He's may have stolen documents. Shows he wasn't being targeted for his relation

to Greenwald. Which is a relief. I didn't want the US authorities to have sunk that low. Looks like the authorities were just following the letter of the law.

[reusrename]

32. I don't see anything at all about stolen documents.

The story says that they were given to him, not that he stole them.

[okieinpain]

6. is it illegal to have classified information n/t.

[morningfog]

9. How is that terrorism, though?

[okieinpain]

12. i just want to know if its illegal to have

Classified information

[morningfog]

13. He wasn't detained under an "illegal to have classified information" Act.

[AgingAmerican]

57. They let him go

Obviously they had nothing on him.

[jmowreader]

30. Extremely illegal.

[Paulie]

43. In Brazil, UK and Germany to have US classified info?

Highly unlikely.

[hootinholler]

44. Fine. Show me the law then.

I doubt that simple possession of classified information is illegal. Bribing someone to obtain it probably is, but if someone just gives it to you then I doubt it is illegal.

[oldhippie]

50. Nope.

Show me a cite that shows otherwise.

[Recursion]

8. It puts it under the national security rubric

I think this was a stupid move on the UK's part, but OTOH if they got the thumb drives it may have been worth it to them.

[malaise]

37. Whether it was worth it to them or not is absolutely irrelevant here

That does not make it terrorism and they had no right to use an anti-terrorism law to achieve their goal.
This is fugging madness.

[Recursion]

38. Don't they?

It seems to meet the absurd criteria of the statute. Another problem with overly broad laws like that.

[chimpymustgo]

53. Means justifies ends? You're supporting some scary shit, you know.

[limpyhobbler]

22. Probably. Video taping cattle is terrorism so all bets are off.

Or so it seems.

[Tx4obama]

2. Possession of stolen government property.

[morningfog]

14. Is that terrorism?

[Igel]

17. Yup.

Pretty much by definition, paragraph 58 of the Terrorism Act (2000).

Doesn't meet my "man on the street" definition, but then again I think holding a heavy box is obviously work even though I also know that holding a heavy box is also obviously not work. The first takes a lot of effort. But since work = force x distance the object's moved through, and if I'm just holding it, there's no distance, so there's no work.

There's this clever trick of knowing two definitions for the same word that comes from being a native speaker of a natural language. Polysemy's not just for breakfast.

I will admit it's tough keeping strictly to one definition during a conversation.

[Electric Monk]

20. I had to google that, and it would seem you are correct about UK law regarding terrorism, but,

the way I read it, even having a transit schedule in your possession could count as a terrorist act by their definition.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58

58 Collection of information.(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2)In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

[geek tragedy]

48. Holy crap, that's an awful statute. Would never fly in the US, even under the Roberts court, nt

[HipChick]

29. That will get you every time..

[progressoid]

31. Then why did they let him go?

[randome]

40. Maybe because of the optics.

No one wants to make a martyr out of Greenwald or his partner. But at the same time, you can't allow anyone to launder stolen material through the U.K.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

4. Interesting, we all know Greewalds's reputation for truthfulness

Peeling this onion is going to be a tearful experience I have a feeling.

[davidpdx]

19. There is no peeling, people have already made their assumptions about what happened

even before we actually get all the information. It's called knee jerk reactions.

[Fumesucker]

23. Oh, the onion is going to get peeled one way or another

We all make thousands of assumptions every day some of them life and death, the car coming up to the red light when you have the green is going to stop.

[davidpdx]

24. I see what you are saying about it taking time and I agree with you

I'm just saying that DU is all about those knee jerk reactions lately.

[Electric Monk]

5. They took his video games and DVDs too?

I wonder if he had Eagle Eye in his DVD collection?

[Dawson Leery]

7. Neo-con war monger Greenwald has a history of being less than truthful.

I will wait to hear more.

[Bonobo]

10. How the hell would this reporter know what was on the thumb drives? nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. Maybe the reporter is an actual journalist and not a polemicist.

Maybe they have informants who don't necessarily need to rendezvous with Rubiks cubes.

[Bonobo]

26. Odd how demands for evidence fall by the wayside, eh?

I mean, when unsubstantiated reporting is done, I guess its only a problem if you don't like what it says.

Greenwald actually produced evidence you know -unlike this case.

So anyway, how would they know? Errr, I forgot...you couldn't possibly have an answer and will not request verification in this case.

[jberryhill]

27. Did you know

That each of the 43 quintillion unique states of a Rubik's cube, all possible permutations can be solved in 20 moves or less.

That would be one way of remembering a very large number, or a least being able to regenerate a large number with a relatively short sequence of moves.

[Aerows]

46. This one could be solved in a very short sequence of moves

all of them delicious

[mathematic]

59. "Mr. Greenwald said"

It's right there in the OP.

[mick063]

11. So...here is the deal

There must have been intelligence to clue the British when to move.

It takes 5 minutes to confiscate a thumb drive.

It take nine hours to find out where the originals are.

Mr. Miranda told them there were no originals. They didn't believe him.

Agents are en route to Brazil to search.

There are copies hidden in Hong Kong as well.

Greenwald is threatening a more harmful release of information if they don't back off.

Back to the "Mexican Standoff"

Greenwald dies in a single car accident next week.

Meanwhile, Putin is taking a sip of Vodka with a devilish grin. He has the originals.



Cool spy novel huh? A Tom Clancy tale.

[PragmaticLiberal]

41. "Greenwald is threatening a more harmful release of information if they don't back off".

I hadn't heard that little tidbit.


Maybe it's just me but isn't that inconsistent with what Greenwald/Snowden said their motives were in the first place?

[mick063]

42. I'm writing a novel, not a news report

No one knows what the hell is really going on except for the spooks.


I know the story unfolding is so wacked, that it seems like Tom Clancy wrote it.

"Fascinating" in a Mr. Spock kind of way.

[Recursion]

15. Hm. The whole point of encrypted files is that you don't have to do cloak & dagger stuff

to exchange them. And if somebody intercepts them en route it doesn't really matter. If they were encrypted files, why bother with a thumb drive? Just email them. Now, if they were a set of encryption keys, that's very different. And if they were a one time pad (that's the only thing the size makes sense for), that's also very different.

[oldhippie]

52. Hmmm, I hadn't thought of a OTP .....

It would make some sense to use a courier to physically transport a large One Time Pad. And encrypted on a thumb drive would be a pretty good double protection technique. Depending on how good the randomizing algorithm for the pad was, it would be pretty much unbreakable even by NSA.

[bemildred]

61. That is speculative, but it makes sense, the OTP.

Just have to try again, if that's the case. Meanwhile, lots of noise.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. POLICE STATE POLICE STATE POLICE STATE

[Rex]

21. You know I am kinda getting a theme here from your post

and prior posts...something about a 'police state' I believe?

[tblue]

34. Did you say, "Police State"?

Tell me, do you think this is a Police State?

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. If this story is true, why wasn't Miranda arrested?

And I don't see any attribution for the statements by Greenwald about Miranda transporting any of the Snowden documents. Where did that come from? It isn't in Greenwald's Guardian article.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. Because they secretly injected a tracking device into his body. Now they wait.

[NuclearDem]

45. I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work.

[Recursion]

33. Because the courier isn't necessarily doing something illegal

For that matter, Greenwald isn't doing anything illegal; but they'll still do what they can to get the data.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Don't know about UK law

but here in the U.S., if items are "seized" (by warrant) that doesn't mean the person who is in possession of them (or say an owner of a warehouse where such seize-able items are stored) is immediately "arrested".

Along this same line, again if such happened here in the U.S., a Grand Jury might then have been impaneled, and at the conclusion, an indictment could be handed down that would lead to charges. and an eventual "arrest".

[CakeGrrl]

36. So Greenwald boasts of the

explosive power of the data Snowden stole,

But doesn't expect anyone to bat an eyelid when his own partner goes to see Poitras?

(MULE ALERT, durr)

And then gets all indignant when they have the nerve to detain him after Snowden's blowhard boasting.

Really?

[Cha]

39. GG gets "indignant" for his fans..

he knows they eat that red meat up with a shovel.

[Harmony Blue]

47. Miranda wasn't arrested

nice fantasy you have built up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. If I were Greenwald I'd have thousands of thumb drives.

They would all have encrypted versions of Angry Birds on them.

[Vinnie From Indy]

51. Well that settles it!

It takes approximately 12 to 16 hours to fully bake an Apologist Pie !

Nothin' says lovin' like a slice of apology pie!

[dawg]

54. That information did not belong to Snowden or Greenwald.

It belongs to me. My tax dollars paid for it. I think I'm entitled to know what I paid for.

Other than the names and locations of actual covert agents (which isn't an NSA thing anyway), or actual specific investigations ongoing against individual terror suspects, I should be privy to the details of what my "representative" government is doing in my name.

They do want me to "fully disclose" my income in order to pay for it, don't they?

[KharmaTrain]

55. As Usual...Wait At Least 24 Hours...

...when dealing with a story like this for the real story to emerge. Seems Mr. Greenwald's problems always fall on a Sunday...right at the deadline. If one's carrying stolen secret documents, one can expect to be stopped...

[Blue_Tires]

56. So if you're Greenwald, why would you admit that ANYTHING of importance was being carried at all?

Why not sit back and let the London police make that accusation (if they can)?

[randome]

58. Very good question.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scurrilous]

60. Thanks.