ZenPro's comment is a very British way to look at government power, untethered to the limits that the U.S. Bill of Rights still imposes even in its weakened state.
> Two computer engineers arrived and oversaw classified material being destroyed. That's it.
Yes, but what if the Guardian had said: "Sorry, mates, we're we're not giving it to you. Cheers!"
That's when the few dozen agents waiting in the vans outside armed with semiautomatic rifles come in and seize the hardware with a slightly less polite approach.
Put another way, everyone who has read NSA/Snowden stories over the last 12 months -- at least the ones with leaked docs embedded -- possessed classified material. That's perhaps 10 million people in the UK alone. Should all of their hard drives be "destroyed" -- "that's it?"
Just because it happens to be law doesn't mean it's right, or just, or defensible.
I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily. If they believed they where acting in the public interest, returning the data voluntarily would be an admission of guilt. The UK was best served by retaining the information and holding the Government to account. Naturally the Government have a resposiubility to oppose the release of sensitive information. There is an inherent unavoidable conflict. But that does not mean that either side actually acted improperly.
>I do not understand why the Guardien would ever give up the information voluntarily.
Because they spent 15 seconds backing up the Snowden files on an anonymous Google Drive account and knew that GCHQ's attempts to destroy the files were futile? Or because they knew that Glenn Greenwald -- writing for them at the time -- was living in another hemisphere, had a full set of the files, and wasn't about to comply? Or because they didn't want to go to prison?
Pick your answer. Each is possible. Note I'm not faulting the Guardian here, just saying what some possibilities are.
In all of my defence of the intelligence community I have never disparaged the Guardian. They were just doing what a free press should do, and I value a free press. The Government were just doing what a Government should do.
When they went toe to toe The Guardian blinked first. When they did the whole process became mundane (in a security policy context).
EDIT: Downvoted for saying I agree with free press! :-) :-) I love this platform
[1] I never stipulated the law was defensible. Laws are weird like that though, we don't get to pick and choose which ones we feel like following that day because of how defensible we think they are.
[2]You have a very US way to look at Government. UK intelligence services have no powers of arrest and carry no weapons. We certainly would not send military forces into a civilian news office so we would, in line with UK and EU legislation, ask the police to intervene once a legal mandate had been proven.
The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied. No men in black with assault rifles were forthcoming. What would have happened is, the place would have been closed, a thorough audit of IT and Magnetic Media would have been conducted. Everything with anything classified on it would have been destroyed. The building reopened.
The Government was doing the the Guardian a favour by saying "Look, we only want these specific info dumps. Carry on business as normal, just give us these or we go to the law and take everything."
Exactly the same way a policemen might let you off with a caution if you are caught speeding and apologise. If you fight him, he impounds the car on the spot and uses the full extent of his legally provided powers. Do you honestly think two guys from GCHQ wanted to be standing in the Guardian on camera watching HDD's being grinded for hours??
The issue with cloud computing is separate and distinct from recovering a known quantity of classified information. I really am struggling to comprehend why people are failing to grasp this point.
Just because X quantity of classified material exists does not mean you can ignore N quantity that can be removed from circulation. Also, you have no evidence to support that the material destroyed at the Guardian HQ had been already released in full, had been copied or transmitted to another location. You have to take each incident on it's own merits. It is what you know to be the facts at the time, not what you hope to be the facts so you can avoid being diligent.
The problem is that your statement "That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institution to act." could easily be interpreted as you saying exactly that. What happens is that two separate questions - whether the security individuals on the ground should have carried out the law as specified, and whether that law should exist in the first place - get conflated.
How I personally would expect a democratic institution to act is to not have these kinds of laws. Press freedom is a critical part of a properly functioning democracy, and I get sick of the state crying wolf with "it's threatening national security" (without, as far as I'm aware, a single instance of an actual national security issue arising from one of these stories ever being published) every time a journalist breaks a story that's embarrassing to them.
> The Guardian knew GCHQ had an airtight case, it is why they complied.
Debatable, given that there are no UK laws that permit the destruction of assets not owned by the Government.
The Guardian parties were not signatories to the OSA. RIPA has no stipulations on the destruction of tainted assets.
More likely the threat of seizure of a wide range of equipment and extended 'investigation' by the authorities would have been sufficiently disruptive to the Guardian's conduct of business that it was quicker and easier to comply.
The assets were owned by the Government. The minute they were used to store and/or transport classified information.
Exactly the same way a bank account becomes the property of the state if it is used to launder money or an item becomes the property of the state if it is seized for illegality.
As per the High Court ruling. Unless you know of a different High Court?...
Nuremberg - really? We are already moving towards comparing the destruction of laptops with the widespread genocide of ethnic minorities and Jews?
They are not following orders. They are following the law.
Intelligence Services are not the military and as such do not fall under the Armed Forces Act 2011 (Military Law) therefore your assertion of "orders" is incorrect.
Even if they did fall under it, any order not compatible with UK legislation would be legally bound to be ignored.
The were not following orders. They were following the our legal guidelines for the security of classified information in the UK.
If it is a HRA violation, feel free to raise it in court and state your case.
> Two computer engineers arrived and oversaw classified material being destroyed. That's it.
Yes, but what if the Guardian had said: "Sorry, mates, we're we're not giving it to you. Cheers!"
That's when the few dozen agents waiting in the vans outside armed with semiautomatic rifles come in and seize the hardware with a slightly less polite approach.
Put another way, everyone who has read NSA/Snowden stories over the last 12 months -- at least the ones with leaked docs embedded -- possessed classified material. That's perhaps 10 million people in the UK alone. Should all of their hard drives be "destroyed" -- "that's it?"
Just because it happens to be law doesn't mean it's right, or just, or defensible.