The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Risbridge is wrong. First of all, he should have demanded a court order to destroy the hardware and/or the stored data. Second of all, the Guardian can publish from Brazil but that doesn't mean anyone in the UK will get to read it. In paper or online. After all, everyone browsing the net from Britain has to use a piece of actual hardware actually sitting in Britain a cell tower, a network port, an optical fibre connection, a DSL connection, an undersea wire, a satellite uplink. People have to use DNS servers and routers sitting physically in the UK.
What prevents the government from shutting down anyone who does not agree to insert a government sniffer unit in their hardware, with a gag order or a superinjunction or whatever they have in the UK that prevents people from even mentioning the fact that they have been gagged? Or else have their hardware destroyed, confiscated or sealed under the antiterrorism act?
The Great Firewall of China is coming soon to a united kigdom near you. Via meatspace. And there's nothing Rusbridge is going to do about it except brag that he can put his webserver in Brazil. Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
The Great Firewall of China is coming soon to a united kigdom near you. Via meatspace.
Friend of mine who at the time was in China could not access something funny, politically harmless. He noted that of course he could get around the Great Firewall, but that trying might bring unwelcome attention, so unless it was really, really important he was not going to. So yes, meatspace is where they get you and where they frigthen you to censor yourself.
I am not quite sure what the best strategy would have been, but if the choice will reamin one between testing the means judicially and printing I think setting up another paper in Brazil - Guardian Brazil or something - could be a way to ensure capability to do both. After all, you need to get the inforation on how you are being silenced out there, and Guardian Brazil maybe can get some timely leaks on exactly what goes on behind those locked court doors.
Reminds me of the 19th century (but these days, what doesn't?). For example:
Aftonbladet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When it was first published in 1830 by Lars Johan Hierta, it was a tabloid that reported news and also criticised the new Swedish king Charles XIV John. The king stopped Aftonbladet from being printed and banned it. This was answered by starting the new newspaper "Det andra Aftonbladet" (The second Aftonbladet), which was subsequently banned, followed by new versions named in similar fashion until the newspaper had been renamed 26 times, after which it was allowed by the king.[2]
Or rather, after which the executive power gave up. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The long struggle against censorship in the 18th century at the time of oppressive kings in Europe involved the hand-copying and circulation of unpublished anonymous manuscripts. Sometimes dangerous or proscribed books were printed in places beyond the reach of the French kings, in Amsterdam or Geneva. The struggle against censorship was not won with the almost miraculous First Amendment to the US constitution. The amendment, which forbids the government to establish an official religion and prescribes freedom of speech, the press, and assembly only slowly over the subsequent two centuries actually came to mean in practice some of what the words seem to imply. It only took a decade or so for the US government to abolish the First Amendment, taking us back to a censorship regime. It is not the censorship regime of the Sun King in France, but it more resembles that system than it resembles the world imagined in the First Amendment.
The struggle against censorship was not won with the almost miraculous First Amendment to the US constitution. The amendment, which forbids the government to establish an official religion and prescribes freedom of speech, the press, and assembly only slowly over the subsequent two centuries actually came to mean in practice some of what the words seem to imply.
It only took a decade or so for the US government to abolish the First Amendment, taking us back to a censorship regime. It is not the censorship regime of the Sun King in France, but it more resembles that system than it resembles the world imagined in the First Amendment.
George Bush raising the laws of the Old West to how Washington needs to operate: Patriot Act, NSA spynetwork, invasion of Iraq, torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, forced feeding prisoners, etc. Obama continues these laws with more vengeance. Who is Cass Sustein?
Extrajudicial killing of US citizen Al-Awlaki in Yemen (plus 2 other US citizens) and the war crimes of drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. Who gets jailed for 35 years?
○ Support Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize ○ Toobin, CNN's Shill for the Establishment/NSA his bio 'Sapere aude'
Rusbridger happens to be the editor of a paper which has one of the pioneering and best news and opinion websites, which has taken on the gov over wikileaks and now Snowden/NSA stories. But you're sure he doesn't understand about the powers of gov in relation to the internet - don't you think you might be a little bit arrogant here ?
Rusbridger is talking about what seem to be possible courses of action NOW; he's not claiming they can get stories out and available in the UK WHATEVER the gov might do in the future. The gov is clearly embarrassed by the revelations so far and are reluctant to seem too heavy-handed, hence the civil servant saying "you've had your fun". They have also recently been influenced by the right-wing press's hypocritical defense of press freedom after the Leveson report, so they do not want to seem to be attacking that freedom too much and wouldn't get support from their usual mates in the right-wing media if they did.
I think there would be a lot of public outrage and pressure on the gov if they were shown to be blocking Guardian stories published from elsewhere - they would not want to seem to acting like the Chinese. But this is speculation about possible future scenarios, not evidence of Rusbridger' supposed ignorance, no better supported than was the criticism of Greenwald that he was supposedly "entirely ignorant of international treaties" - which turned out, as I suspected, to be false.
Having seen the kind of material involved in the wikileaks and Snowden/NSA stories, and having had to deal with various kinds of gov pressure over the years I think Rusbridger is pretty well aware of what gov is technically able to do, but also of its desire to keep some sort of credibility in regard to the role of the media in a supposedly democratic society - and the pressure of the right-wing media for the gov not to interfere. I think Rusbridger is to be applauded for the stand he's taken, not arrogantly put down because he hasn't discussed all the possible future scenarios - while you don't take into consideration the government's reluctanace to use all the means techinically available, for political reasons, as their political credibility would be radically undermined if they were seen to be acting like China in blocking access to journalism. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. 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.
Cf.:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52805576#52805576
especially about 4 minutes in - and the tone is far from "bragging". Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/23/guardian_nyt_partnership_on_gchq_disclosures/
Meanwhile you continue to try to find fault instead of welcoming their continuing efforts to bring this stuff to the public's attention - the majority sympathetic to Snowden - and hence to those supporting him. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
But I think he should have demeaned a court order should have indeed pursued legal action. And that is not a "nasty little put down" but a quite fundamental question.
Blogging from your phone, eh? Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
"Blogging from your phone, eh?"
I don't belong to the spoiled youth of today who needs mechanical help to mess up.
He shouldn't have demanded a court order for the reason I gave - which you just ignore - mere assertion is not very convincing. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age
They are not MY "worries"they are the views of a very experienced British editor - who knows rather more about the press and British law than you. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
First term mistake.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
As I said, they are the views of a very experienced British editor, who constantly has to deal with issues of the relations of the press and the British legal system - and hence is a "legitimate authority" on the subject.
IM must try harder in the second term to avoid obvious blunders :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 8 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 6 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 11 11 comments
by gmoke - Mar 7
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 5 2 comments
by gmoke - Feb 25
by Oui - Mar 21
by Oui - Mar 191 comment
by Oui - Mar 19
by Oui - Mar 18
by Oui - Mar 175 comments
by Oui - Mar 16
by Oui - Mar 164 comments
by Oui - Mar 1510 comments
by Oui - Mar 155 comments
by Oui - Mar 147 comments
by Oui - Mar 1312 comments
by Oui - Mar 12
by Oui - Mar 1113 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1111 comments
by Oui - Mar 1116 comments
by Oui - Mar 109 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 104 comments
by Oui - Mar 94 comments
by Oui - Mar 82 comments