Miranda detention, passwords given up

[Nicholas Bohm]

On 20/08/2013 18:46, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 August 2013 18:40, Francis Davie wrote:
>
>     2013/8/20 Igor Mozolevsky:
>
>     > I was thinking about that, but then it seemed rather broad- the US
>     > government telling the Russian government that granting any form
>     of asylum
>     > to Snowden would have serious adverse consequences would then
>     amount to an
>
>     Those "serious adverse consequences" would have to fall within one of
>     the list in s1(2). The point about 1(2)(e) is that we all know that
>     seriously interfering with the operation of an electronic system is
>     much easier (and less serious really) than the rest of the list which
>     involves killing or hurting people or acts of a similar nature.
>
>
>  
> I went to see what the Act says about it after I posted the quick
> reply, and, as you say, under 1(2)(e) one would need to "seriously
> interfere ... or disrupt an electronic system". I doubt merely copying
> data from the NSA to some removable device would amount to
> interference or disruption let alone a serious one if such copying was
> not outside SOP for the clearance level that Snowden had...

The NSA may think its electronic systems have been seriously disrupted
by the publicity they've been given.  That may not strike rational
people as a tenable argument under the Act, but smashing up the
Guardian's computers doesn't seem the act of a rational government, so
it's hard to say where this may go.

Nick
-- 
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>