It is over five years since I first blogged on the theme of whether I would prefer to trust Google or GCHQ with the privacy of my e-mails. Material put into the public domain by the Guardian merely confirmed that for those who are of interest to the US security services it is much the same thing. I suspect that is also why David Miranda was stopped in transit at Heathrow and the Guardian was forced to destroy its UK-based files . But maybe he was also suspected of carrying information about UK espionage, not just counter-espionage, activities. If so, what puzzles me is the use of Anti-Terrorism legislation instead of the Official Secrets Act . I had thought that Sections 5 and 6, like section 7 of the 1920 Act used to convict Erwin Van Haarlem in 1989, applied to Foreign Citizens on UK soil, even if only in transit. I would be grateful for postings from readers as to why this was not appropriate (or for private e-mails)
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
[It has since been pointed out to me that Section 7 of the 1920 Act was used against “Van Harleem” because it was not known what information he was handling or even who he really was. Another reader thought that the use of anti-terrorism legislation was reasonable because Snowden almost certainly copied information of value to terrorists (as well as to others). Meanwhile the split of public opinion quoted in today’s Guardian article on the legal controversy is interesting: including support for the destruction of their hard discs – would you trust their ability to keep secure that which they decide not to publish because it was not in the public interest, let alone allow journalists to make such decisions?].
Meanwhile the spread of low cost, mass market, encryption tools, from Scrambls to Silent Circle threatens to also destroy the business models of many of those who are so ensthusiastic about Big Data . We live in “interesting times“.