David Miranda is lying, and the Guardian is covering it up

Short one today:

David Miranda is lying. Why are the Guardian not reporting this?

The Guardian said they paid for his flights and expenses because he was “assisting a reporter [Greenwald] in his work”. They said “as his partner he often assists [Greenwald] in his work.”

Yet in their own interview with him Miranda denied assisting Greenwald in his work on the story, claiming to have had nothing to do with it, and not to know what had been taken from him: 

“It is clear why they took me. It’s because I’m Glenn’s partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection,” he said. “But I don’t have a role. I don’t look at documents. I don’t even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.”

Believable? No, not at all. But not questioned by the Guardian despite their statement that his flights (and expenses)  were paid for because he was “assisting a journalist with his story”.

But have a look at this video from yesterday’s blog, and slide the cursor to 5:05, to see Miranda again lying through his teeth: Greenwald, next to him, cannot supress his smirk. CNN’s anchor asks if Miranda was muling classified intelligence:

“I don’t know that… I was just taking the fil- … those materials back to Glenn. You know Glenn been working with a lot of stories along the years…I didn’t quite follow everything that he writes every day…I can’t follow him, because I have to have a life.”

 

Uh-huh. So now we have Miranda saying not only that he didn’t know what he was muling but that he didn’t even know which story he was supposedly working on! You know, my husband writes lots of stories! Who can keep track of them? Certainly not David Miranda. He flew Rio-Berlin to meet with Snowden hagiograpgher Laura Poitras, but the story might not have been about Snowden! It could have been about German architecture, or the decline in real schnapps production! How is David Miranda supposed to know, dudes? He has to have a life!

Only, Miranda quite clearly and distinctly says to camera “I was just taking the files” then stops himself (as Greenwald smirks) and substitutes Rusbridger’s “[journalistic] materials” just in time.

This is nice, easy, simple proof that David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald are speaking falsely. Miranda knew he was muling classified intel, and Glenn Greenwald knew his spouse was held for that reason and NOT “to intimidate me” as he claimed.

Why isn’t the Guardian reporting on this?

They are cover-up merchants supreme.

I have no doubt they fear what authorities in London and Washington now know from Miranda’s “encrypted” thumb drives. In an editorial today Alan Rusbridger made it quite clear his paper was not going to respect British judges or obey British law:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/commentisfree+world/edward-snowden

…prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all.

 

Damn those pesky judges and the rule of law!

 

 

 

15 comments

  1. nigelpwsmith · August 24, 2013

    Miranda, Greenwald, Rusbridger & the Guardian are the worse form or journalist.

    No, they didn’t steal the text messages left for a murdered girl.
    No, they didn’t bribe a policeman to get information on someone important.
    No, they didn’t fabricate stories about a husband & wife frantic after their daughter was kidnapped.
    No, they didn’t chase a woman down a dark alley at night trying to take celebrity photos of her.
    No, they didn’t use a long lens to take pictures of a couple relaxing topless whilst on holiday.

    No – what they did is endanger an entire country by making it easier for terrorists to murder millions, to make it easier for these same terrorists to murder the people protecting us day & night.

    What they did is endanger all of us, because they thought they were above the law. They used stolen information, as someone pawns a stolen painting, to enrich themselves in the process.

    It was because of people like this that Lord Justice Leveson held his inquiry, to prevent them abusing their positions, to stop them acting against the public interest and hiding behind the sham of ‘investigative reporting’.

    Many a fine journalist has risked their freedom to find out things the public needs to know, but these ‘journalists’ (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense – because they don’t deserve the title) have decided to risk everyone’s lives just so they can cash in on stolen information. I hope the lot of them are arrested and spend a very long time in prison to reflect on their stupidity.

  2. SlingTrebuchet · August 24, 2013

    It’s very simple.

    If he transports devices, he is helping the work. He is performing a service.
    He does not have to know what precisely is on the devices.
    He does not have to work on the material.
    He simply helps the work by carrying devices.

    Does your postman/woman know what is in the letters delivered to you?
    Do you find that having letters delivered to you is helpful? (bills excepted)

    You are being ridiculous.
    You want to parse quotes so that they mean what you want them to mean.
    .
    .

    nigelpwsmith ,

    Perhaps you could ‘splain how exactly they made it “easier for terrorists to murder millions, to make it easier for these same terrorists to murder the people protecting us day & night.”

    Please, a full explanation. I’m sure it would be fascinating.
    Clearly you won’t be disclosing any secrets (if you have any at all) as the bad guys mentioned above must logically have already disclosed the information on which your assertion is based.

  3. Ant · August 24, 2013

    What a small-minded, shoddy, nit-picking little article. As if the definition of “assisting” makes the slightest difference to anything. My keyboard assisted me in writing this, but it didn’t do the writing.

  4. David · August 25, 2013

    People are making this about being Glenn Greenwald being gay, when it’s about dealing in stolen information.
    If you’re carrying stolen goods expect to be stopped.
    If your carrying stolen goods of a classified nature expect to be held for a long time.
    Not knowing what you’re carrying does not excuse anything.

  5. SlingTrebuchet · August 25, 2013

    Eh…. I thought it was about terrorism?
    Miranda was held for 9 hours during which his interviewers attempted to determine if he was a terrorist. It seems that they could not determine that he was a terrorist – and released him. That’s what the purpose of that law is.

    If it was only about stolen goods, then presumably there is some law that applies to that situation. The stolen goods can be returned to their rightful owner – who must be missing them dreadfully.
    Whereas goods might have been insured, that is no real compensation for the loss of dearly-loved items.

  6. David · August 25, 2013

    So you don’t want stolen information/goods to be recovered and returned to its rightful owner?

  7. SlingTrebuchet · August 25, 2013

    David,

    You are missing something less than subtle.

    If Miranda was carring devices with data files recorded on them, and those files included NSA-source information copied by Smowden, then they are simply one of a potentially unlimited number of copies of the information. They are not *the information* (as in – the only copy)

    Confiscating the devices does not “recover and return” anything.
    Assuming that the material was not encryted, all the NSA gets is a knowledge of at least part of the material that Snowden copied. It would be very odd if the material was not encrypted. This would raise a question.
    The NSA do not know the full extent of what Snowden copied. He was a systems Administrator. This allowed him to bypass normal controls and remove audit trails.
    The NSA do not need anything to be “returned”. It never left their posession.
    What they want to know is the full extent of what Snowden copied.
    It might well even be that Greenwald/Poitras do not know all of what Snowden copied.

    Snowden says that , for example, he “had access” to a full list of NSA personnell and assets around the world. This would not be surprising given his job function. It is highly unlikely that he copied this given what he says about his motivation.
    Nevertheless, the NSA do not know whether or not he did.

  8. Mike Ross · August 29, 2013

    Don’t buy it for an instant. You and everyone should read Poitras’ airport story:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=all

    “After being detained repeatedly, Poitras began taking steps to protect her data, asking a traveling companion to carry her laptop, leaving her notebooks overseas with friends or in safe deposit boxes. She would wipe her computers and cellphones clean so that there would be nothing for the authorities to see. Or she encrypted her data, so that law enforcement could not read any files they might get hold of. These security preparations could take a day or more before her travels… Once she began working on her surveillance film in 2011, she raised her digital security to an even higher level. ”

    And we’re expected to believe Miranda was flying from Poitras to Greenwald carrying *sensitive documents* which they hoped to arrive safely???

    I simply do NOT believe it. Credibility is zero.

    1. It was a deliberate bait, to see if the UK police could be goaded into taking action while he was changing planes at Heathrow.

    2. It was a blinder; he WAS carrying documents, but not THE documents.

    3. It was part of a bluff; he WAS carrying genuine documents, but only SOME of them, with the intention of bluffing the government(s) that what they got from him was ALL of them.

    4. It was a warning. He was carrying the genuine documents, and Poitras & Greenwald WANTED the government(s) to know exactly what they had. “You think what we’ve published already is embarrassing? Well we’ve got worse, so don’t piss around with us, ok?”

    The more I think about it, the more certain I am; what happened at Heathrow was EXACTLY what Greenwald & Poitras INTENDED to happen, on one level or another. There’s a LOT of deception about this story. I think they’ve been very clever; they’ve had to be.

    • nigelpwsmith · August 29, 2013

      Excuse me, but are you seriously suggesting that Greenwald and Poitra planned to have Miranda detained at Heathrow?!

      That’s utter rubbish. That’s stretching conspiracy past credulity.

      The reaction by Greenwald, his fury at Miranda’s detention, tells us that there was no ‘plan’ to test the Government’s response. He would not have made the threats that he did ‘off the cuff’ if he had known that Miranda was likely to be detained.

      In fact, as Louise pointed out (and on other respected legal blogs elsewhere) the threats (that Greenwald hastily tried to retract) were in actual fact an offence that could be prosecuted. Greenwald knew that he’d crossed the line, but could not put the genie back in the bottle, as CNN broadcasted it to the world through You-tube.

      From the Judicial Review hearing afterwards, we can deduce that the material withheld by the Police contained data which could not be decrypted within the 9 hours allotted under the Schedule 7 arrest. It’s very likely that they tried, but failed.

      However, from the recent hearing and the announcement that a criminal investigation has been initiated, we can conclude that they’ve broken the encryption and found what they suspected and from this, they are now able to make a case against Miranda (and possibly Greewald & Poitras too) if they return.

      • SlingTrebuchet · August 29, 2013

        However, from the recent hearing and the announcement that a criminal investigation has been initiated, we can conclude that they’ve broken the encryption and .

        The chances of them breaking any encryption are slim to zero.
        They needed the pass phrases. If they decrypted anything, they must have been incredibly lucky with guessing – or somebody told them.

        There was huge “harruummmphing” and rattling of newspaper about ‘life-threatening’, ‘damaging’, ‘endangering’, etc. right from day.1.
        “We can conclude” (TM) from this that either
        1) At least some of the files were not encrypted for some very strange reason, or
        2) It’s humbug. There is simply an assumption that he was carrying ‘Snowdon stuff’.

      • SlingTrebuchet · August 29, 2013

        we can conclude that they’ve broken the encryption
        Some information for you on encryption…

        From: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57591560-38/facebooks-outmoded-web-crypto-opens-door-to-nsa-spying/

        Eran Tromer, an assistant professor of computer science at Tel Aviv University who wrote his 2007 dissertation on custom code-breaking hardware, said it’s now “feasible to build dedicated hardware devices that can break 1024-bit RSA keys at a cost of under $1 million per device.” Each dedicated device would be able to break a 1,024-bit key in one year, he said.

        The story notes that only Facebook and some minor sites use 1024. The other web-notables use 2048 and 4096. The difficulty of cracking increases exponentially with bit length. Anybody serious about encryption would use something far more impressive – aka “effectively uncrackable”.

      • Mike Ross · August 30, 2013

        “Excuse me, but are you seriously suggesting that Greenwald and Poitra planned to have Miranda detained at Heathrow?!

        That’s utter rubbish. That’s stretching conspiracy past credulity.”

        It’s highly speculative I grant you, but intriguing. It would account for a few things. Just read, again, the article I linked to. She displays a very healthy paranoia about information security in investigative journalism and the need to be ‘clean’ when passing through airports.

        “we can deduce that the material withheld by the Police contained data which could not be decrypted within the 9 hours allotted under the Schedule 7 arrest”

        If he had material, and it was properly encrypted, there are a few possibilites…

        – Miranda had the password, and surrendered it in compliance with Schedule 7 questions.

        – Miranda did not have the password, and the police decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he was lying when he said he didn’t have the password.

        In the first instance, they have the data.

        In the second instance, 9 hours would not suffice for *properly-encrypted* data. Neither would 9 months, and probably neither would 9 years.

        I think it’s a very fair bet that anything involving Poitras & Greenwald was very properly encrypted indeed. So…

        “we can conclude that they’ve broken the encryption and found what they suspected and from this, they are now able to make a case against Miranda (and possibly Greewald & Poitras too) if they return.”

        I don’t think that holds water at all.

  9. SlingTrebuchet · August 30, 2013

    Interesting – Gov says that Miranda was carrying a hand-written password for one of the files in the collection.
    They maybe tried it against all the encrypted files they found?

    Sheeesh! – password not even spread out over different surfaces (paper , devices, etc. ) and letters rearranged/shifted depending on sequence – plus a few added.

    • SlingTrebuchet · August 30, 2013

      Ah!
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/david-miranda-police-powers-data

      He said while most of the files remained encrypted, it was possible to access a portion of files on the hard drive because a piece of paper containing basic instructions for accessing some of the data that included a password for decrypting one of the files was among Miranda’s things.

      Robbins said assessments by GCHQ had shown that the number of documents on the hard drive seized from Miranda was consistent with the number that Snowden would have had access to when working at the NSA and that he “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk”, and that at least some of that was being couriered by Miranda.

      “The material seized is highly likely to describe techniques which have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorist operations, and other intelligence activities vital to UK national security,” he said.

      a piece of paper containing basic instructions for accessing some of the data that included a password for decrypting one of the files
      So it’s likely to have been a tutorial – involving any random content – and not necessarily – and most probably not – a Snowden-related thing.

      the number of documents on the hard drive seized from Miranda was consistent with the number
      The NSA don’t know how many docs Snowden copied.
      at least some of that was being couriered
      At least some of an unknown number – wow!

      The material seized is highly likely……
      They don’t know what is in the files. They simply assume.
      .

      It’s humbug!
      They have a hand-written password for one file – that is most likely to have been just a tutorial file.
      The actual information is encrypted and they are simply guessing as to the contents.

  10. Pingback: The Year’s Best Political Figures | The Witchfinder General

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s