The destruction of the gchq and testified destruction of the guardian hard drives with the snowden files was a purely symbolic act. Only what should be aimed at him?
It’s already absurd what the guardian editor-in-chief alan rusbridger reported yesterday (snowden-affare: british government put guardian under prere). The british secret service gchq had started after the first enthusiasts of the nsa documents to dust prere on the newspaper. Apparently, publishers and journalists should be shaken. It is allowed to suspect that from washington at least a wink to the british government and the nsa-closely associated british intelligence service has now become an end to the matter. How fast-friendly nations respond to such winks, you had already seen, when european states of the machine of the bolivian prasident denied the surcharge and forced them to land in vienna. In the uk and is already helpful in the case of assange, they have also arrested and heard the friend of the guardian journalist and snowden-familiar greenwald after the terrorism law at the airport and confiscated his data carrier – and had previously called gchq employees to the guardian to destroy the material of snowden.
Publishing building of the guardian in london. Image: bryantbob / cc-by-sa-3.0
Then the absurd spectacle begins. After a new, somewhat more detailed presentation of the guardian, the secret service, behind which the british government was certainly, from continuing to prevent the nsa-reactive activities from being reported, but also on its own lausch programs and cooperation with the nsa. For three weeks later, rest, but then the secret service had become active again and demanded the transfer again. The newspaper now had her spab, so it’s over now, threatening it threatening. That too sounds again as the goods have been reappeared by the us again, where all the wife house could no longer control the excitement and finally, barack obama saw him to promise to promise more transparency and overview, but at the same time to are that already everything with the boundless suction of data is okay.
That the snowden files are not only on the data carriers of the guardian, but at least snowden they had planned and had created security files, should also have been clear to the british intelligence service – and that was certainly the case. It remains advisable why the action against the guardian lively in a survivor’s melte, which the newspaper is one of the "strange episodes in the history of journalism in the digital age" designated. It seems to be a symbolic action, which knew all the parties, probably one wanted to prove so the rough transatlantic brother that you make everything possible. After the guardian you moved to 20. At least the material destruction of the data carrier to the threatened legal action, because then the risk has existed not to report on the monitoring programs. A british court may have to demand the transfer of the files and will be able to assess a pretent ban. The guardian now refers to the fact that the freedom of the press in the us is better protected, which is why it’s from there or from brazil reports. On a legal dispute, obviously you did not want to get involved, which does not speak for confidence in the british legal system.
Ruisbridger wants to point out before the destruction act again that there are other copies of the files in other countries, and the guardian by no means alone in their possessions. However, the government has further insisted that the material is destroyed or handed over. First, the intelligence staff explained that foreign governments, especially china or russia, could penetrate the guardian’s servers and could approach the data. At least for the russian government, however, this would certainly have been a unnecessary and politically risky detour, schnowden was already in russia at that time. The guardian ared that the files were on isolated data carriers that were not associated with the internal network, so no danger was that they were chopped by suburbus. After renewed threat of legal steps, the guardian wanted to prevent the british authorities from receiving the files because that was a betrayal of snowden and one did not want to help them pursue snowden criminal law. Oberdies wanted to prevent that when an analysis came out, which journalists had already accessed these.
So, after more distinctly conversational compromise, you have found the seemingly satisfactory compromise to destroy the files in the london newspaper building under supervision, whereupon the secret service consisted of inexpensive grounds, and in the future of the united states to report. With two gchq employees, equipped with notebooks and cameras, went to 20. July paul johnson, the deputy editor-in-chief, the manager sheila fitzsimons and the computer expert david blishen in the basement to destroy the hard drives with raw violence, with angle wave, drilling machines and other tools on which the files were stored. The intelligence staff made notes and photographed, but did not take anything.
How and whether it was ensured that on the hard drives were the files of snowden and that there was no copies, the guardian does not report. Probably the intelligence staff were not interested in it, they should probably only testify that the hard drives were destroyed, so that you could pass the good after washington, albeit completely ineffective message and evicted with pictures that have no significance in this case, only a destruction action of hard drives can be visible, but not which data has been destroyed. You could almost win the impression that a dadaist or surrealistic performance has taken place. The result could be explained to the artwork. Or the americans should be really satisfied with such a symbolic action? The british made fun of washington? Or did the guardian first look at insight into the files and does not want to say this?
As with the arrest of the greenwald friend miranda, the woman wants to have nothing to do with the destruction of the hard drives. Josh earnest, the spokesman of the woman’s house, explained on monday, the us government has nothing to do with the decision and arrest of miranda. Asked questions should be addressed to the british government, which one officially wants to push the black peter. Although the british government wants to have been informed about the incident, but did not interfere with the police investigation. But the ministry of the interior turned behind the action, finally the task of the police to protect the land before terrorism. And if the police ame that a person has important information that could help terrorists, they should also act accordingly. Interior minister may stressed that in the uk, the separation of powers gives birth and the government no arrests arrest.
And yesterday he said that it is not for the us government "appropriate" be to destroy government secrets in the british way: "it’s hard to introduce yourself to a scenario, after which this is reasonable", he said to distance the wife house from the british government, which also speaks for such a rather behind the jerking of the openness. But he did not want to criticize the british government from obvious reasons.