Post date: Aug 20, 2013 11:45:23 PM
The British authorities forced the Guardian newspaper to destroy material leaked by Edward Snowden, its editor has revealed amid ongoing revelations involving a nine hour police detention of a man linked with the journalist.
LONDON, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM (AUGUST 20, 2013) (ITN) - Guardian editors revealed on Tuesday (August 20) how and why the newspaper destroyed computer hard drives containing copies of some of the secret files leaked by fugitive U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
A timeline of events provided by the Guardian said initial British attempts to stop reporting on the files came two weeks after the newspaper published its first three stories based on Snowden's leaks.These stories were about a secret U.S. court order obliging communications company Verizon to hand over data on customers' phone usage, Britain's secretiveGovernment Communications Headquarters' (GCHQ) use of data from a NSA internet monitoring programme, and British intelligence spying on allies in London.
Shortly afterward, two senior British officials arrived to see editor Alan Rusbridger to demand the newspaper hand over all its Snowden files, arguing the material was stolen, according to the Guardian's timeline. He refused.
Three weeks later, in July, after the publication of more articles, officials got back in touch with Rusbridger and told him, according to the newspaper: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."
The officials expressed fears that foreign governments, particularly Russia orChina, could hack into the newspaper's IT network although the journalists stressed the documents were not stored on any Guardian system but held in isolation, according to the newspaper.
Between July 16 and 19, the Guardian said government pressure intensified and there was an explicit threat of legal action if the newspaper did not comply.
Rusbridger said he decided that if the government was determined to stop Britain-based reporting on the Snowden files, the best option was to destroy the Londoncopy and to edit and report from the same material held in the United States andBrazil.
On July 20, two "security experts" from GCHQ visited the paper's London head office and watched as deputy editor Paul Johnson, executive director Sheila Fitzsimons and a newspaper computer expert used angle grinders and other tools to pulverise hard drives and memory chips storing encrypted files, according to the newspaper.
"They took it on trust that the computers that we showed them were the computers that we had been using, and yes, they came down to the basement with us and they said you have to destroy this, this and this on a computer in order to make sure that it can never be read or recovered. And so we had this slightly bizarre scene where, under their instruction, we disabled the computers," explained Rusbridger.
Both sides were aware other copies existed outside the Britain.
"I don't know what changed or why they felt that destroying a copy in London was important, but they seemed relatively unconcerned about a copy held in identical circumstances in America," said Rusbridger.
The British government said on Tuesday that police were right to detain Guardianwriter Glenn Greenwald's Brazilian partner David Miranda for nine hours on Sunday (August 18) if they thought lives might be at risk from data he was carrying from Snowden.
Rusbridger disagreed.
"Well, I think this is an Alice In Wonderland world, because they (the police) didn't know what was in, whatever it was that Miranda was carrying. And what they have done is to allied journalism and terrorism and I think this is why this has caused outcry around the world. Because what they have done is to use a bit of the law that relates solely to ports and airport lounges. So if they'd arrested David Miranda in the car park at Heathrow, he would have had all the checks and balances that the law has that would allow him to plead journalistic immunity or special status, instead of which they use a bit of the terrorism legislation, which is supposedly used not for people who are suspected of anything but it's supposed to be a random thing, and that gives them the ability to question him for nine hours without a lawyer and to seize anything they want. That seems to me a misuse of a terror law to inhibit journalism," said the Guardian editor.
Home Secretary Theresa May said police held Miranda at a London airport under anti-terrorism powers, which allow for action to prevent stolen data to aid terrorists. Material from Snowden, published by the Guardian, has revealed extensive U.S. and British surveillance of global communications networks.
"I think it's 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, and that's what the law enables them to do," May said on Tuesday.
An independent reviewer was looking into the police conduct, she added.
"But of course the law also has safeguards within it, and we have an independent reviewer who, as he has already said, as David Anderson has already said, he will be looking into this case to ensure that it was conducted properly," said May.
As interior minister, May said she was briefed in advance that Miranda might be stopped but she stressed that she did not decide whom the police detained. TheUnited States said Britain gave it a "heads up" but it did not ask for Miranda to be questioned.
Snowden, who faces criminal charges in the United States, has been granted a year's asylum by Russia.
A British lawyer who launched an action on the Brazilian's behalf to question the legal basis of his detention said police seized a laptop computer, a telephone, memory sticks, a computer hard drive and a games console from him. He was released without charge after reaching a time limit on such detentions.
Miranda had been in transit at Heathrow airport, carrying material from Snowdenthat was being passed from Berlin-based American documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras to Greenwald, an American writer for Britain's Guardian who lives in Rio de Janeiro.
"These items contain sensitive, confidential journalistic material and should not have been seized," Miranda's London lawyers wrote in a letter to May and the police.
Brazil's government has complained to Britain. The action against Miranda also was denounced by British opposition politicians, human rights lawyers and press freedom groups.
"Well, yesterday the Home Office said it was simply a matter for the police, but today we know that the White House knew about it, the British government knew about it, and so I think Teresa May needs to set out what her view is and what her position is, when of course there are still so many legal questions about the use of terrorism powers in this case. Fighting terrorism is really important and that's why the powers must not be misused," said Yvette Cooper, UK opposition party's shadow home secretary. "Especially when there are so many legal questions still being asked. The independent reviewer is looking at this. You know, protecting the country against terrorism, protecting our national security is so important that people have to have confidence that powers aren't being misused."
The leaks by Snowden, a former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, gave details of NSA and British surveillance of public telephone and internet traffic. The United States and Britain say their agencies acted within their laws and the leaks threatened their national security.