h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Guardian, a UK national newspaper, obtained computer files from Edward Snowden to do with UK and US monitoring of communications, blah blah. They wrote about it, at length.

WEEKS later, last Saturday, the UK government sent representatives to the offices of the newspaper to supervise the physical destruction of some computer storage devices.

The knew - they were told in no uncertain terms - that the files contained on these devices were not the only copies, that backups to which the Guardian have unfettered access exist in multiple locations outside the UK government's jurisdiction, and that the act of destroying these particular copies would have absolutely no material effect whatsoever, what with it not being 1837 and everything.

And the destruction went ahead regardless.

The financial cost to the Guardian was minimal - probably less than a thousand pounds. If they were meant to feel intimidated, it definitely didn't work. I'm baffled what they thought they were going to achieve.

I'd like to see whoever sanctioned this action - and today's news suggests it was David Cameron himself - brought to book for bringing our government into disrepute. I mean, it's one thing to prop up third world dictators so you can get their oil at a cut price, it's one thing to bomb defenceless villages in countries we aren't at war with, it's one thing to fraudulently claim expenses for things you don't need or indeed even have, and it's one thing to systematically dismantle a national health service and welfare state it took decades to build - and the one thing all these things are is the thing you EXPECT from a Tory government. Or a Labour government, in many of those cases, come to think of it.

But it's quite another thing to childishly demand and then personally supervise the destruction of a few computers for NO POSSIBLE REASON WHATSOEVER. It really does just make you look like a mentally-retarded bully.

Can anyone suggest a positive reason for this action? Anything at all the government hoped to gain from this?

I'm no IT expert, but could it be the files in the hard drive may show where they came from and the method used to extract them more clearly than copies?

The answer to the question, in respect of the current government, is that if they tried to look stupid they would probably fail.

they were just offended by the age of the equipment its self and then went on to tell the newspaper where the government gets its own computers from at what must be a bargain price...

UK governments nowadays tends to be run by professional politicians who if they have had any experience outside of politics it has invariably been in PR or journalism.

Could I draw your attention to the Careers section of A87804372 - "Are you Statistically Prepared to Become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?", currently in Peer Review?

It shows the previous careers of the various people who have sat at the top of UK governments.


Geggs

I don't think they are trying to look stupid.I just think they are.

Anyway just how much is the government actually responsible for this situation?I think they were quick to take the applause but are now busily trying to distance themselves from the whole situation.

I'm with you on this one, Hoo. I wonder whether they'd have dared do the same to the Telegraph, or one of Murdoch's papers.

It's a petulant response. They don't like being out of control. They found a piece of information that wasn't being stored in their cloud and wanted to let us know it.

It's one thing. Okay, maybe two things. Well, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. But seriously, there must be few countries where the citizens don't cringe when their leaders do really stupid things. The leaders of my country do such stupid things that I've occasionally wondered what other country to go to. Then I see the leaders of other countries doing equally boneheaded things. I might as well stay where I am. Woody Allen said that reality leaves a lot to be desired, but it's the only place where you can get a really good steak.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that real-life political stupidity provides plenty of material for comedy. I like to laugh. Like Country Joe MacDonald, when it's my turn to go I shall go laughing and singing.

I can see a reason for it on grounds of symbolism. Think of the alternative: you have an organisation whom both you and everyone else knows is/are holding illegal documents, and you just leave them to it for practical reasons, letting them break the law very publicly with total impunity.
Also, now that their access to the documents in this country is destroyed, if they try (and succeed, of course) to access the documents from their exterior storage points, they are breaking the law again, which gives the government at least some recourse.
I think of it a bit like someone standing just outside your arm's reach, making obscene gestures at you. If you try to do anything, you know they will just run away. You can leave them to it, in which case you know they will continue insulting you and making it seem like it's okay to do such things to you, or you can make a lunge at them and at least make them go away, even if you look a bit ineffectual in the process.

Good (if long) read about the assumption of competence in our security services, from the always interesting Adam Curtis....

------------
The recent revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden were fascinating. But they - and all the reactions to them - had one enormous assumption at their heart.

That the spies know what they are doing.

It is a belief that has been central to much of the journalism about spying and spies over the past fifty years. That the anonymous figures in the intelligence world have a dark omniscience. That they know what's going on in ways that we don't.
-----------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

"Symbolism" is precisely the reason why they would have been advised to do absolutely nothing, however. The action they took yielded no benefit whatsoever, but symbolically, it was a massive own-goal, which only served to draw attention to their own impotence.

I thought something similar about the detention of David Miranda: keeping the boyfriend of a journalist for 9 hours under the very shaky defence of terrorism seems calculated to blow up in their faces.

So let's see: you've got a publication that has been given access to very classified material. They've printed a lot of it but you got to (or at least I would) assume they've kept some really good stuff back. Then you start poking them with a stick and riling them. I'm sure it'll end well for the government.

But I'm quite sure that the spies do know what they're doing, and for the most part probably do it pretty well. Not that I know much about that

but... what happens to the information and what governments do with it is a whole other

>> The recent revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden were fascinating. But they - and all the reactions to them - had one enormous assumption at their heart. ... That the spies know what they are doing. <<

But I'm not sure that's true ... the blog shows examples of the damage they can do to innocent people by getting it wrong through acting on prejudice ... rounding up innocent people ... shooting Brazilians in the head in underground stations ... drone bombing civilians ... If the spy service was more competent maybe there would be less complaints (?). That said it seems that the Police service has been successful in foiling planned terrorist attacks.

Spies don't round people up.

>> Spies don't round people up. <<

Read the blog. MI5 --> Police --> arrest. Anything else to add?

scrap arrest & replace with "interned as prisoners of war"

"police"
not spies

So if there are 9 spies, and you round them up, then they're 10 spies?