SEARCH

Opinion » Comment

Updated: August 21, 2013 00:32 IST

Surveillance threat to journalism is real

Alan Rusbridger
Comment (1)   ·   print   ·   T  T  

Neither the bizarre visit from British spooks to the Guardian offices nor the detention of columnist Glenn Greenwald’s partner will stop the newspaper from reporting on state surveillance

In a private viewing cinema in London’s Soho last week I caught myself letting fly with a four-letter expletive at Bill Keller, the former Executive Editor of the New York Times. It was a confusing moment. The man who was pretending to be me — thanking Mr. Keller for “not giving a s**t” — used to be Malcolm Tucker, a foul-mouthed Scottish spin doctor who will soon be a 1,000-year-old time lord. And Mr. Keller will correct me, but I don’t remember ever swearing at him. I do remember saying something to the effect of “we have the thumb drive, you have the first amendment”.

The fictional moment occurs at the beginning of the DreamWorks film about WikiLeaks, The Fifth Estate, due for release next month. Scottish actor Peter Capaldi is, I can report, a very plausible Guardian Editor.

This real-life exchange with Mr. Keller happened just after the Guardian took possession of the first tranche of WikiLeaks documents in 2010. I strongly suspected that our ability to research and publish anything to do with this trove of secret material would be severely constrained in the U.K. America, for all its own problems with media laws and whistleblowers, at least has press freedom enshrined in a written Constitution. It is also, I hope, unthinkable that any U.S. government would attempt prior restraint against a news organisation planning to publish material that informed an important public debate, however troublesome or embarrassing.

On August 18, David Miranda, the partner of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, was detained as he was passing through London’s Heathrow airport on his way back to Rio de Janeiro, where the couple live. Mr. Greenwald is the reporter who has broken most of the stories about state surveillance based on the leaks from the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Mr. Greenwald’s work has undoubtedly been troublesome and embarrassing for western governments. But, as the debate in America and Europe has shown, there is considerable public interest in what his stories have revealed about the right balance between security, civil liberties, freedom of speech and privacy. He has raised acutely disturbing questions about the oversight of intelligence; about the use of closed courts; about the cosy and secret relationship between government and vast corporations; and about the extent to which millions of citizens now routinely have their communications intercepted, collected, analysed and stored.

Precious back-up

In this work he is regularly helped by David Miranda. Mr. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work. Mr. Greenwald has his plate full reading and analysing the Snowden material, writing, and handling media and social media requests from around the world. He can certainly use this back-up. That work is immensely complicated by the certainty that it would be highly unadvisable for Mr. Greenwald (or any other journalist) to regard any electronic means of communication as safe. The Guardian’s work on the Snowden story has involved many individuals taking a huge number of flights in order to have face-to-face meetings. Not good for the environment, but increasingly the only way to operate. Soon we will be back to pen and paper.

A dangerous place to be

Mr. Miranda was held for nine hours under Schedule 7 of the U.K.’s terror laws, which give enormous discretion to stop, search and question people who have no connection with “terror”, as ordinarily understood. Suspects have no right to legal representation and may have their property confiscated for up to seven days. Under this measure — uniquely crafted for ports and airport transit areas — there are none of the checks and balances that apply once someone is in Britain proper. There is no need to arrest or charge anyone and there is no protection for journalists or their material. A transit lounge in Heathrow is a dangerous place to be.

Mr. Miranda’s professional status — much hand-wringing about whether or not he’s a proper “journalist” — is largely irrelevant in these circumstances. Increasingly, the question about who deserves protection should be less “is this a journalist?” than “is the publication of this material in the public interest?” The detention of Mr. Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the U.S. and U.K. governments — while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Mr. Snowden — are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception is right. Here follows a little background on the considerable obstacles being placed in the way of informing the public about what the intelligence agencies, governments and corporations are up to.

A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior British government official claiming to represent the views of the Prime Minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government favoured a far more draconian approach.

The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: “You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.” There followed further meetings with shadowy government figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from the government looked mystified. “You’ve had your debate. There’s no need to write any more.”

During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian’s reporting through a legal route — by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government’s intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the U.S., was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the U.K.

Truly bizzare

But my experience over WikiLeaks — the thumb drive and the first amendment — had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from the government about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Mr. Greenwald lived in Brazil? The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian’s long history occurred — with two security experts from the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian’s basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. “We can call off the black helicopters,” joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

The government was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won’t do it in London. The seizure of Mr. Miranda’s laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Mr. Greenwald’s work. The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes — and, increasingly, it looks like “when.”

We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting — indeed, most human life in 2013 — leaves too much of a digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Mr. Snowden or say reporters should trust the state to know best may one day have a cruel awakening. One day it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack. But at least reporters now know to stay away from airport transit lounges. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2013

(Alan Rusbridger is Editor of the Guardian.)

RELATED NEWS

Miranda gets limited injunction August 23, 2013

More In: Comment | Opinion

Mr.Miranda was detained not because he was/not a journalist, but because he was
Mr. Greenwald's partner. Hate to see U.K. playing the poodle once again to USA. Best
wishes and luck to all of Guardian/Guardian US members. Thanks Hindu for the
collaborative effort.

from:  Reju
Posted on: Aug 21, 2013 at 08:37 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Comment

ON SHAKY GROUND: With the BJP recruiting activists and mobilising support acrossWest Bengal, the importance of the Left is waning. Picture shows Left Front supporters taking part in an election rally in the State. Photo: PTI

Saffron is the new red in West Bengal

The political importance of Left parties in West Bengal seems to have been eclipsed by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s thumping victory »