'UK closer to police state after crackdown on Snowden files'

"The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security,'' -  Home Office statement.

'Snowden data destruction won't harm our reporting' - Guardian's Alan Rusbridger

The British government's attempts to stem the tide of articles on mass surveillance have gone beyond intimidating the journalist behind the publications. Just a day after Glenn Greenwald's partner was detained at Heathrow airport, The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, came forward describing how the authorities pressured the newspaper to destroy documents provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Mr. Rusbridger has explained why he gave in to pressure from government agents, and destroyed hard-drives carrying information obtained from Edward Snowden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgWqGuGOAw

Unreported in the Telegraph and the British right-wing media

Snowden NSA files: US and UK at odds over security tactics as row escalates

White House says it would be 'difficult to imagine' US authorities adopting GCHQ tactic of demanding destruction of hard drives

the Guardian,

20 August, 2013

The White House distanced itself from Britain's handling of the leaked NSA documents when representatives said it would be difficult to imagine the US authorities following the example of Whitehall in demanding the destruction of media hard drives.

As a former Tory prisons minister said the use of anti-terror legislation to detain the partner of a Guardian journalist at Heathrow airport had brought the law into disrepute, the White House suggested it would be inappropriate for US authorities to enter a media organisation's offices to oversee the destruction of hard drives.

The White House – which on Monday had already distanced Washington over the detention of David Miranda – intervened for the second time in 24 hours after the Guardian revealed that senior Whitehall figures had demanded the destruction or surrender of hard drives containing some of the secret files leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, said that two GCHQ security experts oversaw the destruction of hard drives on 20 July in what he described as a "peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism". Rusbridger had told the authorities that the action would not prevent the Guardian reporting on the leaked US documents because Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who first broke the story, had a copy in Brazil, and a further copy was held in the US.

The White House responded sceptically to the report of the destruction. Asked at his daily briefing on Tuesday whether President Obama's administration would enter a US media company and destroy media hard drives – even to protect national security – the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said: "That's very difficult to imagine a scenario in which that would be appropriate."

The intervention by the White House came after the British government embarked on an aggressive offensive to justify the treatment at Heathrow of the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Theresa May, the home secretary, confirmed that she was given advance notice of Miranda's detention as she praised the police action on the grounds that he possessed sensitive documents that could help terrorists and "lead to a loss of lives".

But May received a setback when the former Tory prisons minister Crispin Blunt criticised the use of terrorism legislation to detain Miranda, who was held for nine hours at Heathrow on Sunday under schedule seven of the 2000 Terrorism Act. This allows police to detain people at ports and airports even if they are not acting suspiciously. Blunt told Channel 4 News: "Using terrorism powers for something that doesn't appear to be a terrorism issue brings the whole remit of the laws passed by parliament to address terrorism into disrepute."

But May praised the police action as she and Downing Street acknowledged they were given advance notice of the detention. May told the BBC: "I was briefed in advance that there was a possibility of a port stop of the sort that took place. But we live in a country where those decisions as to whether or not to stop somebody or arrest somebody are not for me as home secretary. They are for the policeto take. That's absolutely right that they have their operational independence. Long may that continue."

The home secretary, whose officials had initially declined to comment on the issue on the grounds that it was an operational matter, said it was right for the police to act because of the sensitive nature of documents in his possession. May added: "I think it is right, given that it is the first duty of the government to protect the public, that if the police believe somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information which could help terrorists which could lead to a loss of lives then it is right that the police act. That is what the law enables them to do. But of course the law also has safeguards within it and we have an independent reviewer who, as David Anderson has already said, he will be looking into this case to ensure it was conducted properly."

Downing Street confirmed that the prime minister was also informed. "We were kept abreast in the usual way," a No 10 source said. "We do not direct police investigations."

The double confirmation, which followed a statement from the White House on Monday that it was given a "heads-up" about the detention, marked an abrupt change of tactics by the government. Officials had declined to answer questions about the affair on the grounds that it was an operational police matter.

The government switched its response from it being an operational police matter after the Guardian disclosed GCHQ's role in overseeing the destruction of the hard disks in a basement of the newspaper's London office. A few hours before the White House statement, Rusbridger said it would be impossible to imagine a similar demand to destroy hard drives in the US.

The Guardian editor told the BBC News channel: "In this country the British government has moved against the Guardian in a way that would be simply undoable in America. America has the first amendment and it has no prior restraint. But what happened with the Guardian is that the British government explicitly threatened prior restraint against the Guardian – ie that they would go to the courts to injunct us and to cede the material which would have the effect of preventing us from writing about it."

Rusbridger added in an interview with The World at One on BBC Radio 4: "It was quite explicit. We had to destroy it or give it back to them."

Rusbridger launched a strong defence of the Guardian's decision to comply with the request to destroy the hard drives after Index on Censorship described the action as "very disturbing". He told Channel 4 News: "Rather than return the material to the government I said we would destroy it in the knowledge that we already had copies in Brazil and in America. It seemed to be our duty to this material and to the public is to go on reporting. If we had waited for the courts to come in judges would have been in control of that information."

The former shadow home secretary David Davis said No 10's confirmation that David Cameron was given notice of the detention of Miranda meant that ministers had, in effect, approved of his treatment. Davis told The World at One: "They didn't direct it, nobody is suggesting they directed it. But they approved it by implication. If the home secretary is told this is going to happen and she doesn't intervene then she is approving it."

May emphatically rejected the claim by Davis. She told the BBC: "No. We have a very clear divide in this country – and I think that is absolutely right – between the operational independence of the police and the policy work of politicians. I, as home secretary, do not tell the police who they should or should not stop at ports or who they should or should not arrest … I am pleased we live in a country where there is that separation."

Miranda was stopped at Heathrow en route to Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with Greenwald, who has written a series of stories for the Guardian revealing mass surveillance programmes by the NSA. He was returning to their home from Berlin when he was stopped, allowing officials to take away his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

During his trip to Berlin, Miranda met Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has been working with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not a Guardian employee but often assists Greenwald in his work.

Theresa May had advance notice of David Miranda detention at Heathrow

Home secretary confirms Met briefed her before but denies she directed actions, saying police had 'operational independence

the Guardian,

20 August, 2013

The home secretary has confirmed that she was given advanced notice of the decision by the police to detain David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow airport.

As part of an offensive by the government to justify the detention, the home secretary praised the police action on the grounds that Miranda possessed sensitive documents which could help terrorists and "lead to a loss of lives".

May told the BBC: "I was briefed in advance that there was a possibility of a port stop, of the sort that took place. But we live in a country where those decisions as to whether or not to stop somebody or arrest somebody are not for me as home secretary. They are for the police to take. That's absolutely right that they have their operational independence. Long may that continue."

The home secretary, whose officials had initially declined to comment on the detention of Miranda on the grounds that it was an operational matter, said it was right for the police to act because of the sensitive nature of documents in his possession.

May added: "I think it is right, given that it is the first duty of the government to protect the public, that if the police believe somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information which could help terrorists which could lead to a loss of lives then it is right that the police act. That is what the law enables them to do. But of course the law also has safeguards within it and we have an inpendent reviewer who, as David Anderson has already said, he will be looking into this case to ensure it was conducted properly."

The remarks by May followed confirmation by Downing Street that the prime minister was also given advanced notice that police planned to detain Miranda. A No 10 source said: "We were kept abreast in the usual way. We do not direct police investigations."

The confirmation from Downing Street and the Home Office, which followed a statement from the White House on Monday, that it was given a "heads-up" about the detention of Miranda, marked an abrupt change of tactics by the government. Officials had declined to answer questions about the affair on the grounds that it was an operational police matter.

The government faced calls from across the political spectrum to give a more detailed response. Downing Street decided to clarify the position after Josh Earnest, the principal deputy White House press secretary, said at a briefing on Monday that the "British government" had decided to detain Miranda.

This claim was seized on by Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, who demanded an explanation from May. No 10 sources said that the White House spokesman meant to say that the UK authorities, rather than the UK government, had made the decision to detain Miranda. The remarks by Earnest explained why No 10 felt the need to make clear that it did not direct police operations.

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, dismissed the No 10 intervention. Davis told The World at One on BBC Radio 4: "The simple fact that the White House had been notified about it really told you that the entire senior tier of government in this area would have known about it – the home secretary, probably the foreign secretary and almost certainly the prime minister.

"What that means is that of course they didn't direct it, nobody is suggesting they directed it. But they approved it by implication. If the home secretary is told this is going to happen and she doesn't intervene then she is approving it."

May emphatically rejected the claim by Davis. She told the BBC: "No. We have a very clear divide in this country – and I think that is absolutely right – between the operational independence of the police and the policy work of politicians. I, as home secretary, do not tell the police who they should or should not stop at ports or who they should or should not arrest.

"I think it is absolutely right that that is the case – that the police decide who they should stop or not and whether they should arrest somebody or not. That's their operational independence. I am pleased we live in a country where there is that separation."

Miranda was stopped at Heathrow en route to Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with Greenwald, who has written a series of stories for the Guardian revealing mass surveillance programmes by the NSA.

He was returning to their home from Berlin when he was stopped at Heathrow under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing officials to take away his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

During his trip to Berlin, Miranda met Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has been working with Greenwald and the Guardian.

The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not a Guardian employee but often assists Greenwald in his work.

David Miranda Heathrow detention: No 10 'kept abreast of operation'

No 10 was "kept abreast" of the decision to detain David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, a spokesman has said.

BBC

20 August, 2013

Mr Miranda was held at Heathrow for nine hours on Sunday, while in transit from Germany to Brazil.

He has launched a legal challenge over the police's use of anti-terror laws to detain him and seize his property.

But Home Secretary Theresa May said the police must act if someone had "highly sensitive stolen information".

Mr Miranda, a 28-year-old Brazilian national, was held at Heathrow on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro where he lives with Mr Greenwald. The Guardian said he had been carrying "journalistic materials" but was not an employee of the newspaper.

Mr Greenwald has broken most of the stories about state surveillance based on the leaks from fugitive Edward Snowden, who used to work at the US National Security Agency.

Mr Miranda said he was held in a room and questioned by six agents about his "entire life". They confiscated his laptop, an additional hard drive, two memory sticks, a mobile phone, a smart watch and a video games console, his lawyers said.

This case is about far more than whether police misused their powers by detaining David Miranda.

It's shone a light on the little-known Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, brought in before 9/11 to deal principally with Northern Ireland-based terror groups - and used 61,145 times last year against a range of passengers, the vast majority of whom have no connection with terrorism whatsoever.

It's demonstrated the difficulties of striking the right balance between freedom of expression and national security - and the lengths to which the state will go to safeguard it.

And it's highlighted the way investigative journalists are now forced to operate - criss-crossing the globe holding face-to-face meetings rather than sending emails with sensitive material in case they're intercepted.

He was required to divulge the passwords to his personal computers, phone and encrypted storage devices, they added.

In Germany, Mr Miranda had been staying with US film-maker Laura Poitras, who has also reportedly been working on the Snowden files with the Guardian. DVDs of two of her films - The Oath and My Country, My Country - were also seized at Heathrow, the lawyers added.

Mr Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows police to hold someone at an airport, port or international rail station for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they have been involved with acts of terrorism.

He is now taking action to challenge the legality of his detention, and to try to prevent the police from examining the electronic items they seized from him.

His law firm Bindmans have written to the home secretary and Met Police commissioner for assurances "there will be no inspection, copying, disclosure, transfer, distribution or interference, in any way, with our client's data pending determination of our client's claim".

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger wrote earlier that the transit lounge at Heathrow was "a dangerous place to be" as a detention under section 7 offered "none of the checks and balances that apply once someone is in Britain proper".

The legal challenge would determine whether it was "permissible for government to use powers to be able to get material from journalists" without enabling them "to argue their case before a court as to why they shouldn't have to answer questions or give up that material", Mr Miranda's lawyer Matthew Ryder, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, added.

The UK's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has said the length of detention was "unusual" and will meet police later.

'Briefed in advance'

But the home secretary said: "I think that it's absolutely right that if the police believe that somebody is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that could help terrorists, that could risk lives, or lead to a potential loss of life, that the police are able to act, and that's what the law enables them to do."

She continued: "I was briefed in advance that there was a possibility of a port-stop of the sort that took place.

"But we live in a country where those decisions as to whether or not to stop somebody or arrest somebody are not for me as home secretary, they are for the police to take."

A Home Office spokesperson previously said: "Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

And Scotland Yard maintained the detention was "legally and procedurally sound", and had been subject to a "detailed decision-making process".

It added that "contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended."

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard also defended the police's actions.

"It may have inconvenienced the Guardian and those that work directly or indirectly for the Guardian," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

"But the fact is they had concerns that there may have been somebody carrying sensitive material that may have directly or indirectly undermined our national security. And I'm glad the police took the action they did."

'Complete rubbish'

The US government said on Monday it had been given the "heads up" before Mr Miranda's detention.

Brazil protested to the UK government that the detention was "unjustifiable".

Mr Rusbridger also said "senior Whitehall figures" had previously put pressure on the Guardian as it prepared to publish details of Mr Snowden's material - threatening to injunct it.

He said he was then told he had to destroy, or hand over to the authorities, a computer containing material which had not yet been published.

But the No 10 spokesman told the BBC that it was "complete rubbish" that they had tried to prevent publication of the revelations.

Stonewalled: 'UK closer to police state after crackdown on Snowden files'

The British government's attempts to stem the tide of articles on mass surveillance have gone beyond intimidating the journalist behind the publications. Just a day after Glenn Greenwald's partner was detained at Heathrow airport, The Guardian's editor came forward describing how the authorities pressured the newspaper to destroy documents provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden. The UK government has reportedly confirmed the move was sanctioned by the Prime Minister himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ74wRoIq8w

Greenwald partner sues Home Office as UK defends 'Miranda op'

The UK Home Office says it has “to protect the public”, but Miranda has accused Britain of a “total abuse of power” and has said he will take legal action against the Home Office. The Guardian is “supportive” of his action.

RT,

20 August, 2013

David Miranda, the partner of US journalist Glenn Greenwald, who published documents about the NSA and GCHQ spying activities leaked by Edward Snowden, in Britain’s Guardian newspaper was questioned for nine hours in London’s Heathrow airport on Sunday under Schedule 7 of the UK’s anti-terrorism law.

Miranda’s lawyer, Gwendolen Morgan, said her client was seeking a judicial review of the legal basis for his detention and wanted assurances that the property seized from him by police would not be examined.

“We’ve sought undertakings that there will be no inspection, copying or disclosure, transfer or interference in any other way with our client’s data,” she told Reuters.

Morgan said the "letter before action" had been sent to London's police chief and the Home Secretary. It also demanded that they detail whether Miranda's data had already been passed on to anyone else, and if so, to whom and why.

"We're waiting to hear back this afternoon from both the defendants. Failing that we will be left with no option but to issue urgent proceedings in the High Court tomorrow,” she said.

It is unclear whether this would in reality stop British authorities from inspecting the data, which is already in their possession.  But the Guardian has said that many journalists pass through Heathrow every day and should not have to worry about whether their material is safe. The paper has said it is “supportive” of Miranda.

The letter form Miranda's lawyer to the UK's Home Office, as published by the Guardian. 

‘Total abuse of power’

Miranda, in his first interview since arriving home in Rio de Janeiro, said the UK authorities were trying to intimidate him and threatened him with jail unless he cooperated and handed over the passwords to his computer and mobile phone.

“They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn’t co-operate. They treated me like I was criminal or someone about to attack the UK. It was exhausting and frustrating but I knew I wasn’t doing anything wrong,” he said.

Miranda was on his way back to Brazil from Berlin where he had been ferrying material back for his partner Greenwald and Laura Poitras, a film maker who has also been working on stories related to the NSA files leaked by Edward Snowden.

“I was in a country with different laws, in a room with seven agents coming and going who kept asking me questions. I thought I might be detained for a very long time,” he continued.

"This law shouldn't be given to police officers. They use it to get access to documents or people that they cannot get the legal way through courts or judges. It's a total abuse of power," he added.

Miranda says he was offered a cup of water and was offered a lawyer but says he refused both and didn’t have a drink until he got a Coke from the machine in the corridor after eight hours of questioning.

He also says he was refused an interpreter and was not allowed to call his partner Glenn who is also a qualified lawyer.  After eight hours he was eventually allowed to choose his own lawyer.

Miranda also claims that the UK was doing the biding of the US, something which the White House has denied. Although Washington has admitted that they were given a ‘heads up’ by the British.

Miranda seemed perplexed at the number and range of questions he was asked while being interrogated. Most focused on Snowden, Greenwald and Poitras, but also a host of random subjects such as the protests in Brazil, why people there were unhappy and who he knew in the Brazilian government.

Miranda insists that his role in the Snowden-Greenwald affair is minimal and that he had no idea what he was carrying, “I don’t even know if it was documents I was carrying. It could have been for the movie Laura was working on.”

Home Office, Police defend actions

The Home Office has defended their decision to detain David Miranda. 

“The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this action need to think about what they are condoning,” a spokesman said in a statement.

The British police have also defended their actions stating what they did was “legally and procedurally sound”.

“The examination of a 28-year old man under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport on Sunday was subject to detailed decision making process. Contrary to some reports the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended. No complaint has been received by the Metropolitan Police Service at this time,” the Metropolitan Police said in statement. 

It was reported in the UK’s Daily Mail Monday that Miranda was carrying encrypted documents linked to Edward Snowden’s leaks. The Mail, a right-wing pro-British establishment newspaper, did not give a source for the information. 

A further twist to the tale emerged after an opinion piece published on Monday by Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, that the paper was forced to let British agents into its offices to oversee the destruction of leaked NSA documents after the government threatened the paper with legal action.

Rusbridger said in an interview with the BBC’s World at One on Tuesday that the Guardian has held back a “great deal” of material on national security grounds and that this had been acknowledged by Whitehall. He also said that Greenwald writes in a very “careful meticulous way” and that people should not take his threat to write more damaging material about Britain’s spies too literally