White House Says It Had 'No Role' In UK Detention Of David Miranda, But Did Have A 'Heads Up'
from the and-what-did-it-say-in-response? dept
The White House has now come out with a statement insisting that it had no role in the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, but did say that UK intelligence gave the US “a heads up” that it “might” happen. Of course, ironically named White House spokesperson Josh Earnest also refused to say whether the US approved or disapproved of the detention.
Meanwhile, it’s been noted by some that Miranda was, in fact, carrying a USB key that contained some relevant information, but Greenwald has said that he’s not worried at all about it, because the data was encrypted:
“We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry – not just for the NSA stories,” says Greenwald via email. “So everything he had – for his personal use and everything else – was heavily encrypted, and I’m not worried at all that they can break that.”
Either way, under the rules in the UK, they could only detain Miranda to determine if he was involved in terrorist activities. Doing investigative journalism is not a terrorist activity unless you’re an authoritarian police state. Either way, it really does appear that this abuse of power is likely to backfire big time on the UK (and the US, whatever its role). It’s unlikely that it did anything to help stop the dissemination of this kind of information, but did reveal the thuggish tactics and police-state mentality by the UK government.
Filed Under: david miranda, encryption, glenn greenwald, journalism, white house
Comments on “White House Says It Had 'No Role' In UK Detention Of David Miranda, But Did Have A 'Heads Up'”
The White House has now come out with a statement insisting that it had no role in the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, but did say that UK intelligence gave the US “a heads up” that it “might” happen.
When you have to speak out to assure people you didn’t do something then there are two possible interpretations:
1- You did/were related to it.
2- Your credibility is so low that people will automatically assume you did it.
Either way people will assume they were responsible for it.
Re: Re:
Yeah, and since there is “No Spying On American Citizens” according to Obama, who can believe a single thing these guys say? I’d look twice and ask a second opinion if they told me that the sky is blue.
Re: Re: Re:
So far as I can discern, David Miranda is a Brazilian citizen, who was flying from Berlin to Rio, via a plane change in London. Like Snowden, he was just passing through. Makes one wonder if he was in an International zone and never entered Great Britain?
So there was no spying on an American Citizen. In that respect it would seem all is hunkey dory.
As mentioned below, they will get just the next story, when they finally break the encryption, which might be in time to verify it against the published article.
'White House claims it has nothing to do with attempted intimidation of press'
In other news, the White House assured reporters that the strong smell of cattle ranch that appeared at the time of that statement was ‘merely a new air freshener they were trying out’.
I wonder if they ordered the decryption of said devices under threat of a 2 year jail sentence for not giving up encryption keys/passwords.
Would look pretty stupid in court though.
Re: Re:
That was my first thought too. If he’s got encrypted data, he can be ordered to provide the keys, or be thrown in jail. I’m wondering if they just imaged everything had hadn’t discovered the encryption by the end of the 9 hours.
Considering how this was handled, I highly doubt that they care how it would look. What’s important to them is that they sent a message to other journalists that aiding those who embarrass the government will be punished.
Re: Re: Re:
What’s important to them is that they sent a message to other journalists that aiding those who embarrass the government will be punished.
This tells us that they are living 20 years in the past. A time when this harassment would have gone unnoticed in the news.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was top story on BBC news this evening – and Greenwald said it only made him more determined.
Foot shot I’d say.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oh no, this is not shooting your foot, this is strapping C4 to it and handing the detonator to someone who now has plenty of reasons to not like you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Unfortunately, the intended recipient of the message was unlikely to be Greenwald. More likely, it was every other journalist with loved ones within reach of the US and UK.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This just means travel must not pass though the UK, it was a dumb move, they could have gone from Paris to Rio. On the question of the encrypted data, as a citizen of Brazil not engaged in any terrorist acts, he should have braced them, and told them a code that was not right, when it did not work, all he could say was dam that’s what they gave me, sometime you need to call their bluff.
Re: Re: Re:
Demanding he provide the encryption keys would likely be useless as odds are good he wouldn’t have the keys.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
why would anyone carry around a thumb drive to use in ‘reporting’ if he did not have access to the information on the drive ?
No Role
The White House has now come out with a statement insisting that it had no role in the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, but did say that UK intelligence gave the US “a heads up” that it “might” happen
No role? Clearly they had at least the “we were told it may happen” role going. If someone tells me they are going to commit an act of terrorism, or commit a serious crime, or violate someone’s civil rights, is not doing anything about it “no role”? If so, I think the NSA has clearly thrown out a net that is WAY too big.
“We won’t torture or Kill Eric Snowden.”
“We won’t illegally detain the partner of a journalist who’s engaged in acts we disagree with.”
“We won’t abuse the power entrusted to us.”
SSDD
Dang it
That broke my bullshit detector. I’m gonna have to go buy a new one now.
Re: Dang it
Next time don’t use it to check their statements, you just need to look and see if their lips are moving.
Re: Re: Dang it
You just need to look and see if anything’s moving
FTFY.
Re: Dang it
You’d get a lot more millage out of an ‘Honesty meter’, though you would have to blow the dust off it every so often, and check to make sure it’s still working.
Re: Dang it
Read the goddamn instructions. It says right on the first page “Turn off before viewing any statements by US or UK governments.”.
There are PDAs but c'mon...
I really do wish the crown would stop publicly sucking my government’s cock.
Yes, it’s vulgar, but so’s the incident.
Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
Indeed. Use the language that best fits the context.
Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
Unless they mean partner in the sense of “business partner”, it sounds like Greenwald and this other guy are down with sucking cocks.
Re: Re: There are PDAs but c'mon...
Then again, that could be government disinformation to attempt to discredit him.
In related news
Breast implants suicide bomb threat. Perhaps they thought Miranda had breast implants?
“That quacking noise you hear is most definitely not a duck.”
I find his lack of faith in the Power of Decryption… Disturbing. Time ravages all things with brute force and CPU power in an economy of scale.
Re: Re:
As long as the encryption is strong enough, by the time they break it, anything pertinent contained within will have already been released.
Re: Re: Re:
Yea, the comment comes off like “They’ll never crack it!” but I also read it as “They’ll never crack it… IN TIME!” thundercrack whilst twirl of the mustache
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is, undoubtedly, what he means. He’s no newbie to these sorts of things, and certainly is aware that no encryption short of OTPs is uncrackable in an absolute sense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He is a newbie, at least at the level that Snowden required for communication. It was Laura Poitras (who Miranda was visiting in Germany) who was ready to use the cryptography tools that Snowden wanted used. That is why Ms. Poitras was the first to really communicate with Snowden.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I stand corrected. Someone needs to give him the next lesson in security, then: the minute you think you’re absolutely secure is the minute that you are in the most danger.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Given the time GG, and crew have had, and what they have been trough in the past, one must assume that they had more then enough time to deploy some seriously heavy encryption, and may be a OTP, but this begs the question, GG is releasing data slowly, a major crowd sourced data dump is possible, grabbing computers and data sticks is like grabbing paper, so 19th century, data is every where, and no where. Them boys at White Hall, and the White House just don’t get it. Never send everything at one time, Never use just one courier.
Re: Re:
Barring huge advances in quantum computers or large number factorization, they’re fine from brute force decryption. So long as the algorithm is secure, we’re talking heat death of the universe timescales with current and reasonably predictable CPU speed increases.
Of course, that still leave the door open for rubber-hose decryption (otherwise known as ‘Tell us the key or we’ll keep beating you with this rubber hose.’). Which they’re half a step away from using if they’re willing to detain people only tangentially related to the case.
Re: Re: Re:
I hear this claimed a lot (especially by crypto companies), but it’s really very misleading. All commonly used crypto algorithms can be broken in a handful of years, worst case, by anyone who has a moderately sized budget.
Those “heat death of the universe” estimates are assuming naive brute-force encryption. In the real world, that is not how it’s done.
That said, encryption is useful and necessary — but it won’t keep your secrets forever if someone wants to crack it badly enough.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like locks. They are there to help keep honest people honest. If someone wants to get in, they will. More or better locks just take longer.
What does that say about folks who try to break encryption?
One supposes that there is some legitimate use for breaking encryption. How should that line be defined?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
They like to solve puzzles — just like most of the people who learn how to pick locks.
There are many legitimate reasons to break encryption (or pick locks). Have you ever lost your key?
I don’t think it’s necessary to define a “line” as such. Breaking encryption is not, in itself, a big deal. The big deal is what happens after the encryption is broken.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Agreed. And it brings up motive. Is it someone trying to open bank accounts, or someone looking for critical business information, or someone tearing open an article that might not look favorably on some government official, or are they opening the pictures Auntie took of the kids over summer vacation at the beach?
I think it is in the motive area that the line might be needed. Someone put a lock on that file for a reason. What reason might one have that is legitimate to unlock that file? Where might that line be drawn?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All commonly used crypto algorithms can be broken in a handful of years, worst case, by anyone who has a moderately sized budget.
I don’t think you understand the math involved here. To put it very simply, Moore’s law has held pretty steady at doubling compute power (give or take) at 18 months to 2 years. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say we can lower that to 1 year.
Q: What would a secure algorithm need to do to keep up with a doubling of computer power every year?
A: Add single bit to the key length each year. Instead of a 256-bit key, you’d need a 257-bit key.
Today, assume a 256-bit key encrypted with algorithm X takes 1 year to brute force.
A 512-bit key encrypted with the same algorithm will take the same amount of time (1 year) to brute force over250yearsfrom*now assuming yearly doubling of compute power.
For any serious modern crypto system, key lengths are much longer, and the algorithms are more robust.
Those “heat death of the universe” estimates are assuming naive brute-force encryption. In the real world, that is not how it’s done.
And that’s specifically why I qualified that statement with “so long as the algorithm is secure” – because modern techniques are to find a weakness in the algorithm or implementation of the system. If a flaw is discovered in the algorithm, all bets are off. If a flaw is discovered in the implementation, all bets are off (example: Android bitcoin wallet using stupid method to generate random numbers, story last week).
If you want a good example of the difference between attacking an algorithm, and attacking the implementation, head over to ArsTechnica and read up on their password cracking stories. All of that is attacking the implementation of how passwords are stored, and how people choose passwords. And yet, with the big password disclosures, there are still some fraction of the lists that remain uncracked – because those passwords cannot be predicted using the methods and would still take absurdly long lengths of time to crack trying every possibility.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I understand the math very, very well. But there are a number of assumptions in your argument that, while commonly true, don’t hold up in the world of professional code-cracking. For example, Moore’s law applies to the number of transistors that can be placed in a given area, not to computing power directly. As a rule of thumb, the two correlate assuming that you are always comparing the same types of machines. The von Neumann machine that is your PC, for example. However, there are other types of computing machines that correlate differently, and for certain specialized applications, can perform better than von Neumann by many orders of magnitude.
Researchers using specialized machines have proven that it is feasible to break almost every commonly used encryption there is in a reasonable amount of time (a few years). It’s expensive, which means that you’d have to be very special for someone to put the effort in, but it is feasible.
Also, this news that it’s even easier than thought before.
Encryption is powerful and everyone should be using it. I am very pro-encryption. But I think people tend to feel more secure than is warranted when they begin to use it. Encryption is no panacea.
Re: Re: Re:
probably talking something like less that 1 hour.
Thuggish Police State Tactics in the UK
It “did reveal the thuggish tactics and police-state mentality by the UK government.”
Hello? This headline from 2012, for example: “PM apologises for MI5’s role in murder of Ulster lawyer.” For the past 4 decades the UK has shown “thuggish” tactics in northern Ireland. Killing the accused’s lawyers was par for the course in 1989. Not much has changed really.
Hmm, I'd paid no attention, BUT this raises a point:
Reporters are usually little concerned about gov’t learning that they know some secret — in the given case, where the one knowing isn’t the source, hasn’t been kidnapped, only searched — because of course the gov’t knows generally what any given person knows, so THIS very public stunt does them almost no good…
And then if you ask WHY, one possibility is that it yet again boosts Greenwald into spotlight, even though he’s revealed almost nothing that I didn’t know years ago, and in this instance reveals even less, only hints that he has secrets on a thumb drive.
So IF “they” were trying to enhance Greenwald’s credibility, this looks quite like a stunt. — And that is yet again consistent with limited hangout psyop, where Greenwald is fed some minor information that “they” want revealed in order to acquaint populace with actualities, and thereby increase the actual effect, not at lessen it.
Just sayin’. Don’t fall for the obvious story.
Re: Hmm, I'd paid no attention, BUT this raises a point:
there is a difference between suspecting and knowing.
I suspect you never finished high school but I can’t be certain. We all suspected the gov’t was spying on us now we can be certain. Do you comprehend the difference?
and of course The White House hasn’t told any lies before, has it?
anyone that believes this statement must be employed by the USG and under ‘A Gag Order’!!
“I’m not worried at all that they can break that.”
Strong words for someone who a few months ago didn’t even use PGP. Of course I have every reason to believe he’s made every precaution possible to protect his data and has received immeasurable help with this task. Still, with the most powerful spy agency at your virtual door all it takes is a single mistake to be your undoing.
Re: Re:
Sheesh, you’re saying mossad are involved now?
Do you smell that?
Pig, is it?
No sheep?
Or is it cow?
Wait, I know what that is, it’s bullshit.
Re: Do you smell that?
I thought there was a hint of chickenshit in there as well.
Least untruthful statement?
Is that the least untruthful statement they could make?
Given the lying and evasion in government today, along with it’s willingness to dispose of treaty agreements and respected international protocols, I can not believe what this government nor what this president says.
It was quite willing to push other countries to deny the Bolivian President and his plane air space to fly through. Those that allow turned out to be a trap of you stay until you are searched. I have to ask were that the Russian President, if you believe the same would have happened?
Yet here it is again, this willingness to basically deny the right of freedom merely because ‘we think we should’ and will find a way to justify it.
Time to go watch “V for Vendetta” again
And why are we supposed to believe the White House?
Tipping point
It seems government abuse is finally reaching a tipping point. I’ve started blogging as a result.
Flash Drive?
Why would someone carrying information that governments would like to get their hands on, have it on a flash drive?
Use a micro-SD card. They’re the size of a Chiclet and can easily be concealed. If you have an electric razor, pop open the case (on the razor, not the carrying case) and slip the card inside. The top edge of most pants forms a hollow tube around the top (my mother used to put elastic in there to avoid using a belt), so a small slit would allow the card to be slipped in there and should be undetectable to anything less than a strip search. Sneakers with thick rubber soles could probably be slit on the side to allow the card to be slipped in, and should be just about invisible to the naked eye. You could even wrap it in plastic and hide it in your cheek. No, your mouth cheek, although I suppose the other would work too.
True, no hiding place is truly safe if they’re determined to find something on you, but it’s better than just having a flash drive in your pocket.
Re: Flash Drive?
With just encryption, one could always say you wanted the information kept confidential if it was stolen or lost. When you are physically hiding information, this gives law enforcement reasonable suspicion that you are hiding it from them in particular. It’s a flimsy excuse, but using such spy tactics could justify a strip search at every opportunity, in addition to being held for 9 hours.
I think it is a reasonable tactic, in this context, to carry an encrypted flash drive. The information being transferred between Poitras and Greenwald could have been sent over the Internet with the same encryption. They would have to assume a government could have copied it without being able to show evidence of that. Using a courier, they force the government to show it’s hand. If the information was not taken then they don’t have to worry about possible cryptographic weaknesses. Poitras can still send Greenwald the information, but now the world knows that the UK/U.S. is harassing journalists.
If you want to keep, not only your information confidential, but the fact that your communicating at all confidential, then use steganography. This is a bit harder when the spies already know the parties at both ends of a potential conversation.
Re: Flash Drive?
Amateur’s !!!! Simple.
Re: Flash Drive?
Which begs the question, did they get every thing, the big stuff could have been wolf bait. Packaged right you could carry any number of chips internally. No different then balloons of coke.
Cant be decrypted ??
I doubt it will take them very long at all to decrypt a single thumb drive, especially if they already have some of the files as reference.
Called ‘cribs’, which they will already have, is this Miranda person a ‘reporter’ ?? or a ‘normal citizen’ just ‘friends’ of a reporter ?
Plus, UK press is actually quite unpopular with citizens of the UK and not really looked up too or trusted.
There simply wont be too many tears about this, it’s simply paybacks for the spying, cheating and lying the UK press is so well known for.
receiving stolen goods, conspiracy
Are two very possible real charges against Miranda and greenwald and that other person.
After one of the charge against snowden is theft, there is a US/UK extradition agreement as well.
Simple questions
How did the UK authorities know he was on the plane? How did they know who he was, or what he was doing?
Simple: someone told them. Someone tracked his movements, and then when he hit UK airspace, they were waiting.
They knew who he was, where he was headed, where he visited, and who he was a partner of.
Guess someone or some agency was watching his every move.
Want to bet that the ‘someone’ or agency was American?
Too easy a bet to win-sorry-but just as scary.
Because he isn’t a public figure, or wasn’t. He was a private person, flying a public airline, for personal reasons. I’d never heard of him, and I’m sure that most people hadn’t.
That’s what the UK authorities were hoping-and that the matter would just fade out.
Unfortunately they underestimated their opponent. You don’t do that to the partner of one of the world’s most prominent journalists and expect them to just take it in the chin.
I would say we have to learn from past experiences. In this I mean what is said and what is meant are two very different things from the same words.
We’ve already learned that meanings of words aren’t what most of us know in the English language. This has come up several times in public addresses and congressional testimony. The old, ‘This program doesn’t do that’ but no word of the other program that does.
The US says it didn’t order David’s arrest. It doesn’t say they were tracking him, or any mention of knowing what he was doing was brought up. Still someone had to know, this didn’t just happen out of the blue.
Add this happenstance to the grounding of the Bolivian President’s plane until it was searched. That is a diplomatic no no. Heads of state have diplomatic immunity.
Add to it, that the Guardian was forced to destroy hard drives. It sure doesn’t sound like the US has no involvement in this on the surface.
Investigative Journalism
Doing investigative journalism is not a terrorist activity unless you’re an authoritarian police state.
**Or how about the passing on of data obtained illegally of state secrets without authority or clearance?
**And to whom that information can be recklessly passed on to unknowns, would be a potential flag if I were just curious, let alone trying to keep the free world safe.
Passwords
Read elsewhere that he was forced to give up passwords under threat of jail.