Snowdon is a dummy

Appeal court says detention of Miranda was lawful but clause under which he was held is incompatible with European human rights convention

A key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, John Dyson, has said as part of a court of appeal judgment.

The decision came in the case of David Miranda, who was detained at Heathrow airport in 2013 for carrying files related to information obtained by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The court of appeal’s judgment on Tuesday will force government ministers to re-examine the act.

Lord Dyson, who made the ruling with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Floyd, said the powers contained in schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were flawed. It allows travellers to be questioned to find out whether they appear to be terrorists. They have no right to remain silent or receive legal advice and they may be detained for up to six hours.
[...]
The ruling rejects the broad definition of terrorism advanced by government lawyers. The correct legal definition of terrorism, the court of appeal has now determined, requires some intent to cause a serious threat to public safety such as endangering life.

The judges concluded, however, that the police decision to detain Miranda, the partner of the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow was lawful.
[...]
In the judgment, Dyson said the police’s power to stop people at ports and airports was not subject to “sufficient legal safeguards to avoid the risk that it will be exercised arbitrarily. The court therefore grants a certificate of incompatibility”.
...
Issuing a certificate of incompatibility is highly unusual, but an option for judges when they conclude that UK law is inconsistent with the country’s international human rights obligations.

The judgment in effect says the police acted within the existing law, but the law itself needs to be altered.

“The exercise of the schedule 7 stop power in relation to Mr Miranda on 18 August 2013 was lawful,” the judges concluded. “But the stop power conferred by paragraph 2(1) of schedule 7 is incompatible with article 10 of the convention in relation to journalistic material in that it was not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise.”

The judgment said: “The central concern is that disclosure of journalistic material [whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s sources] undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect article 10 [freedom of expression] rights.”

... ... ...

The judgment in effect says the police acted within the existing law, but the law itself needs to be altered.

Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden 4h4 hours ago
Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.

Two of the biggest names in government data leaks clashed over how to responsibly release information on Twitter Thursday.
It all started when Edward Snowden tweeted that Wikileaks' "hostility to even modest curation" was a mistake. Wikileaks wasn't happy about the criticism -- and hit Snowden back by accusing him of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


The spat spotlights a major split between how Wikileaks and Snowden have handled the data they helped make public. Snowden worked with the Washington Post and other news organizations to expose National Security Agency surveillance programs. The journalists vetted the documents, many of which have not been made public, and chose to withhold some information that government officials said would compromise national security.

Wikileaks' approach to data disclosure is more radical: It often posts massive, searchable caches online with few -- if any -- apparent efforts to remove sensitive personal information.
The group's recent release of emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed wo of the biggest names in government data leaks clashed over how to responsibly release information on Twitter Thursday.
It all started when Edward Snowden tweeted that Wikileaks' "hostility to even modest curation" was a mistake. Wikileaks wasn't happy about the criticism -- and hit Snowden back by accusing him of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The spat spotlights a major split between how Wikileaks and Snowden have handled the data they helped make public. Snowden worked with the Washington Post and other news organizations to expose National Security Agency surveillance programs. The journalists vetted the documents, many of which have not been made public, and chose to withhold some information that government officials said would compromise national security.

Wikileaks' approach to data disclosure is more radical: It often posts massive, searchable caches online with few -- if any -- apparent efforts to remove sensitive personal information.

The group's recent release of emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed residential nomination. The Clinton campaign and some cybersecurity experts have alleged the Russian government was behind the release -- possibly in bid to hurt her candidacy. (Snowden currently lives in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum following his NSA disclosures.)

On Wednesday, Republican nominee Donald Trump publicly urged Russian hackers to go looking for emails from the private server Clinton used during her tenure at the State Department. Trump later defended his comments as being "sarcastic."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he believes former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was wrong to leak U.S. spy secrets, but is no traitor.

Snowden, 33, was given asylum in Russia in 2013 after leaking classified information about U.S. spy operations. His lawyer said in January Snowden had the right to remain in Russia until 2020 and to apply for Russian citizenship next year.

Putin, a former KGB officer and ex-head of Russia's FSB security service, made his comments about Snowden in an interview with U.S. film director Oliver Stone, excerpts of which were released ahead of its broadcast by U.S. TV network Showtime from June 12.

"Snowden is not a traitor," said Putin. "He did not betray the interests of his country, nor did he transfer any information to any other country that would damage his own people," said Putin.

However, the Russian leader said Snowden should have resigned from his job in the same way he once resigned from the KGB rather than leak secrets if he didn't like what he was doing.

"He shouldn't have done it (leaked secrets). My view is that what he did was wrong," Putin told Stone.

Snowden had the right to act in the way he did however, said Putin, who said he agreed that U.S. surveillance had become too intrusive, while praising his own country's intelligence services for operating within the law.

Putin also criticized U.S. eavesdropping on its own allies like Germany, saying such activity inevitably backfired.

"Trying to spy on your allies, if you really consider them allies and not vassals, is just indecent," said Putin. "It undermines trust, and in the end damages your own national security."

Snowden has used social media to criticize the Russian authorities over a law obliging communications companies to store phone calls and Internet activity for six months. The Russian authorities have not commented on those remarks.

This post may have gotten misplaced. It was meant as a reply to someone named Frank Apisa who was complaining about people not having the courage to use their own names. The argument over classification may be based on an absurdity, but the argument itself is certainly not silly.