How do you know they were stolen documents?

[ProSense]

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html

Greenwald was the one who described the documents Miranda was carrying. Snowden didn't borrow the documents from the government. Questions?

David Miranda was employed as a messenger to carry stolen government documents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489324

[hobbit709]

1. How many times?

Monomania can be a terrible thing.

[ProSense]

3. "How many times" what? n/t

[hobbit709]

4. If you gotta ask, you'll never understand.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. It's like something tweens say in 7th grade nt

[Logical]

12. LOL, there is no limit. n-t

[Capn Sunshine]

35. How Many More Times

They were asking this in 1969

[leftstreet]

2. But were they allegedly stolen from the NSA, or the GCHQ?

If not from the GCHQ, why would Britain detain him but Germany didn't?

Did someone in the US ask the Brits to do this?

Are we looking at another Morales plane scandal?

[ProSense]

5. Well,

"But were they allegedly stolen from the NSA, or the GCHQ?"

...he's threatening England:

Greenwald VOWS Vengance: ENGLAND 'WILL BE SORRY'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489540

[leftstreet]

11. Oh, good. The UK's not just retro-fitting a CYA story here

That's a relief

[grasswire]

6. catch up

We do not know what Miranda was carrying. The sentence below contains the info that came from the reporter without attribution to Greenwald.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

[ProSense]

7. Well,

"Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said."

...I'm sure the rest of the text littered with "Greenwald said" means he didn't say it right?

Clearly the reporter pulled these facts out of thin air.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Read it again and you'll see ...

That the claim is not really attributed to Greenwald but sloppy thinking will lead one to believe it.

[ProSense]

13. I did, and it's still Greenwald.

Even if you take out the statement, it still attributes the fact that Miranda had surveillance-related documents in his possession.

[bemildred]

20. I'll try:

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said.

Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald.

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

See?

If one takes that at face value, one can infer:

Mr. Greenwald said: The snowden stuff was delivered to Poitras, not the other way around.

Nothing is said about what was going back, that was confiscated. (One idea I find interesting is they might have been exchanging one-time pads. To set up secure communications. It would be a reason to have to hand-carry something by a trusted courier, which fits this situation.)

The statement that the content of the thumbdrives was Snowden's stuff is unattributed, hence is the reporter's.

Mr. Greenwald said: Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security.

Mr. Greenwald said: They took everything he had.

You will note quotes are not used, because all Greenwald's statements are translated.

[ProSense]

22. So

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said.

Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald.

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

...she gave him encrypted recipes or something unrelated ("Those documents...were confiscated&quot to deliver?

Still, I appreciate the attempt to prove that these weren't Snowden-related documents.

Remember when The Guardian mangled John Lewis' comments? I know editorializing, and the statement above isn't adding anything to Greenwald's description. In fact, it appears to be based on what he said.

[bemildred]

24. I'm just trying to construe what the story says.

Not trying to determine the facts, we don't know the facts, yet anyway.

But the story does NOT say that Mr. Greenwald said that the stuff on the thumb drives was Snowdens.

It says that he said the stuff sent to Poitras was Snowden's.

[ProSense]

25. Well, it

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said.

Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald.

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

...doesn't if you dismiss the text underlined above.

[bemildred]

28. No, read the first sentence:

"documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras" -- Greenwald said that.

What it says about the stuff going back is: "Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald." This is also unattributed, hence not said by Greenwwald.

But I am not saying either sentence should be dismissed, just that one cannot take them as assertions made by Greenwald. Hence whoever is saying them, it's not Greenwald.

I would find it odd for Mr. Greenwald, also, since he was sending encrypted things, i.e. wants to hide them, to make a statement as to the the contents, at all, after they have left his control.

But carry on ...

[ProSense]

30. What's

"What it says about the stuff going back is: "Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald." This is also unattributed, hence not said by Greenwwald."

....this:

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

[bemildred]

31. It says that Mr Greenwald says that all those documents were confiscated.

The ones that were different, encrypted, and on the thumb drives.

[ProSense]

33. Right, and you're assuming that it has no relation to the statement that follows.

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said.

Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald.

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

Which is why I asked: Did she gave him encrypted recipes or something unrelated ("Those documents...were confiscated&quot to deliver?

Despite the context of the text, you are assuming that he was returning with encrypted document completely unrelated to Snowden's leak.

[bemildred]

34. I'm assuming the text means what it says. nt

[bemildred]

38. You're in luck, the NYT now attributes it to Greenwald:

Mr. Greenwald said that all of the documents encrypted on the thumb drives came from the trove of materials provided by Mr. Snowden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/europe/britain-detains-the-partner-of-glen-greenwald.html

Just posted it.

[ProSense]

39. Thanks for posting. n/t

[bemildred]

40. My pleasure. nt

[GeorgeGist]

8. Slippery journalism from NYT?

Tell me it ain't so.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. If what you write is true, does that mean the NSA and GCHQ are still trying to figure

out what Snowden downloaded from the Booz-Allen servers? Did they stop Miranda to recover documents they already had copies of or to discover if there are some documents that were taken that they have no knowledge of?

If the NSA already knows what Snowden took, this detainment was pure intimidation. If the NSA does not know the extent of Snowden's downloads, how in the world can they be trusted with such awesome powers?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Apparently, the Brits stole them from Miranda so they could find out what the NSA is doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. So a person allegedly in possession of stolen documents was released without charges.

Odd.

[ProSense]

17. Let

"So a person allegedly in possession of stolen documents was released without charges. Odd."

...Greenwald tell it.

Greenwald: Brazil’s Intervention Likely Kept Partner from Being Charged Under UK Terrorism Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490634

[BumRushDaShow]

21. Not "odd"

Just like the U.S. (where we still use a Grand Jury to develop charges and then indict if it comes to that), they have the CPS, with a whole process to enumerate charges once the evidence is reviewed.

Remember News of the World and the delay between the resignation of one of the infamous parties and the "arrest"?

[Rex]

18. The bold sentence was added by the author of the article.

Nice try, but that talking point was totally destroyed last night.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No official is calling them stolen documents, because they weren't

At present the criminal law gives no specific protection to trade secrets. In
particular, trade secrets cannot, in law, be stolen: they do not constitute “property”
for the purpose of the Theft Act 1968,11 section 1 of which defines the offence of
theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it. In the leading case, Oxford v
Moss,12 an undergraduate obtained the proof of an examination paper before the
examination. After reading the proof he returned it, retaining the information for
his own use. He was held not guilty of stealing the information.

The principle is strikingly illustrated by Absolom,13 which followed Oxford v Moss.
The defendant, a geologist, obtained and then tried to sell to a rival company
details of a leading oil company’s exploration for oil off the Irish coast. The
information, which was contained in a “graphalog” (a record of geological data
and an indication of the prospects of finding oil), was unique, since the company
was the only oil company exploring the area. The company had invested £13
million in drilling operations, and the information could have been sold for
between £50,000 and £100,000. Although the judge stated that the defendant had
acted in “utmost bad faith”, he directed the jury to acquit him of theft, on the
ground that the information in the graphalog was not capable of founding such a
charge.

A further difficulty with applying the law of theft to the misappropriation of a trade
secret arises from the requirement that the defendant must intend permanently to
deprive the owner of the property. “It is difficult to see how there is any question
of deprivation where someone has, in breach of confidence, forced the original
holder to share, but not forget, his secret.”

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp150_Legislating_the_Criminal_Code__Misuse_of_Trade_Secrets_Consultation.pdf

[ProSense]

23. If they are from the cache of documents Snowden took

they are stolen documents, the 20,000 documents he gave to Greenwald.

In fact, Snowden is charged with stealing government documents.

[napoleon_in_rags]

26. Woah, does that mean we can be detained for possessing leaked information?

So everybody who reads a Greenwald article becomes in possession of stolen secrets and can be detained?

[ProSense]

32. "Woah,"

"So everybody who reads a Greenwald article becomes in possession of stolen secrets and can be detained?"

...you can't be serious?

If you are, it's not as lame as another similar attempt: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489324#post45

[napoleon_in_rags]

37. I'm just asking where the line is.

My understanding is once it becomes leaked, the leaker is to blame, but then its in the public domain, its no longer classified once every one knows about it, so you won't be convicted of spying if you leaked documents. If Miranda is to blame for something criminal by transporting leaked documents though, that would indicate to me that I have that wrong.

[DJ13]

29. Your own OP says"Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr.Greenwald"

That doesnt sound like Snowden docs, does it?

[Cha]

27. Yeah, unless Miranda had some other docs that weren't snowden's "stolen"

docs.

[oldhippie]

36. I'll go with the idea that they are exchanging .....

.... one time pads.

[randome]

42. Pads or liners?

Oh, Jesus, I have two 16 year old daughters. Forgive me!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

41. Actually, the question is meaningless.

Anyone can be searched in an airport on suspicion of having contraband in their possession. The question should be did U.K. security have a reasonable suspicion? Hopefully we'll get more details about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]