back to article Cops use terror powers to lift BBC man's laptop after ISIS interview

Police have seized the laptop of a BBC journalist who had interviewed men identifying themselves with jihadist organisation Islamic State in order to access these communications. The laptop of Secunder Kermani was taken by police under powers available through the Terrorism Act 2000, according to the Independent. The Register …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what?

    I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details. They're simply employees for a media organisation that exists to make a profit - if they have information that could help police they should hand it over. End.

    Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

      I'd rather not...please have an upvote

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Devil

        Re: So what?

        I'd rather not...please have an upvote

        Let me just cancel that out with a downvote. I like my news as undiluted as possible and that rules out having reporters working under the threat of jail.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          How short is your memory?

          The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.

          Oh, and the source was found dead.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#Contact_with_Andrew_Gilligan

          1. Scorchio!!

            Re: How short is your memory?

            "The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.

            Oh, and the source was found dead."

            Non sequitur argument, and it is known very well that Daesh are publicly stoning homosexuals, throwing them from tall buildings and then stoning them, murdering Yasidi men, raping their wives and children - some of pre-pubescent age - setting fire to Jordanian pilots, trapped in iron cages [...].

            Sometimes I hold contempts in the Reg in contempt, this sort of bollox I excoriate and hold in contempt. It is the lowest, most silly and childish form of non sequitur reasoning.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      Obviously, you don't care much for democracy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        "Obviously, you don't care much for democracy."

        Since when have newpapers ever cared about it? Trial by media is one of their favourite pastimes.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: So what?

          >"Obviously, you don't care much for democracy."

          >>Since when have newpapers ever cared about it? Trial by media is one of their favourite pastimes.

          FFS Boltar. You write a strident post about the BBC, then when challenged you use the behaviour of some newspaper to justify your comment.

          Hey, we have no problem with you having contrarian views, but you do get a bit slippery when asked to expand upon them. Y'know, not citing sources but demanding them from others, that sort of thing.

          And yesterday, you made a tit of yourself by objecting to people being polite. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2015/10/28/oracle_sparc_m7/#c_2678947

          Are you having a bad week?

          1. fruitoftheloon
            Devil

            @Dave 126: Re: So what?

            Dave,

            assuming Boltar is a 'he' methinks he may be having his period...

            Cheers,

            jay

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Dave 126: So what?

              assuming Boltar is a 'he' methinks he may be having his period...

              Nice twist, but that is still sexist. Down you go.

              1. fruitoftheloon
                Thumb Down

                @AC Re: @Dave 126: So what?

                Ac,

                err no it isn't have you read any of the papers on monthly cycles?

                Have a downvote...

                Regards,

                jay

          2. channel extended

            Re: So what?

            Maybe he lost his bicycle?

        2. jason 7

          Re: So what?

          I'm amazed someone still thinks we have 'democracy'. We have what appears to be democracy but when you dig deeper it's far from it.

          Doesn't matter for whom you vote for, the 'agenda' carries on. True democracy has yet to be reached.

      2. Charles Manning

        When you're at war....

        ... democracy goes out of the window. Democracy is a quaint idea reserved for peace time.

        You will also notice that we're always at war.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: When you're at war....

          >>"You will also notice that we're always at war."

          ...with Oceania?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: When you're at war....

            ... Eastasia, surely?

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: So what?

      I think it's disgusting that the state security apparatus has to go through all this pointless bureaucracy to access data from the state broadcaster.

      To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: So what?

        To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

        Yep we should make it all one body, easier to name as well, we can call the police the nose, the news agency the mouth, security services can be the fingers...

        1. GX5000

          Re: So what?

          Yeah, Brazil was one helluva Christmas Movie wasn't it ?

        2. geascian

          Re: So what?

          Oh?

          Has the party in power changed its name already then?

          Mind you with Nov 5th almost here its the right time of the year.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

        Do I detect a hint of irony there? Have an upvote sir!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        And all statements by the Minister of Propaganda are broadcast immediately to the subjects.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room in every house that the government, police and every large corporation can access through the insecure internet 24/7. That is the only way we will be one step ahead of all the terrorists that are hiding in all our neighborhoods.

        Signed: G. Orwell.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          "I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room..."

          Isn't that why we now have smart TVs and Windows 10?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room..."

            Your confused, that was the xBox One ... oh, wait a minte

    4. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

      The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even.

      The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."

        Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        Who, Murdoch?

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          >You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.

          FFS!!

          Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. Their current affairs output is subject to regular review by the BBC Trust, as well as navel-gazing and viewer feedback... see the Radio 4 Media Show for examples.

          The BBC isn't perfect, but it leads to an infinitely better state of affairs than in the US, where Fox and CNN dominate, and a comedy show is considered the most trustworthy news source by many.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

            Not disputing the need for a free press, but ...

            "Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "

            However, not to be too pedantic, but my personal experience where I have actually been part of the news reported by the BBC, I would add that;

            "Neither the truth nor impartiality are the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "

            The BBC is but a shadow of its former self and no longer a reliable source, something that somewhat pains me to admit.

        2. Wolfclaw

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit", yes it does to offset it's cost, pay for new programmes and bonuses and the threat of losing the licence fee.

        3. Scorchio!!

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          " "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."

          Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please. "

          The BBC has a very big profit making arm, one which is funded by the licence fee and taxation and is growing all the time... ...to the detriment of the market. It is also true to say that the BBC advertises its own products, and it is true to say that it is engaged in a very big ratings battle. It is disturbing to see this large corporation exercising so much power, when the people behind this are substantially comprised of individuals with a political philosophy of quasi liberal-socialism which includes the concept of 'false consciousness', thus enabling them - like the Labour party - to know better, and thereby destroy parts of British culture and history; for example Florence Nightingale was made into a racist and the BBC were challenged; their weak excuses fell and they apologised, but this is happening a great deal as poorly educated graduates, spoon fed risible crap, flow into the BBC. They have been caught with their pants down, making the news, operating quiz shows for which there were no winners or for which winners were selected, falsifying the news, and on it goes; I can produce evidence for this and am among the sort of people who continually badger them for their misdeeds.

          The BBC has become so powerful that, during the Proms, it has been operating a socialising mechanism for thousands of pounds; free tickets and booze for the famous, squeezing their hands and persuading them to speak against cutting them from many radio stations and too many TV channels. Similarly, they persuaded people to sign a letter condemning the 'cuts'. The BBC are given billions of pounds, both by direct taxation (licence fee) and indirect (govt. finance), and until recently people who failed to pay received a criminal conviction and often a spell in gaol. Even if you do not watch any TV programmes (and to watch any of the BBC's competitors such as Sky, ITV and such you must pay the BBC's licence fee), having a television and using the net to view television programming can get you into trouble; Lord Hall wants licence fee money from computers and mobile phones as well.

          This is the tip of the iceberg; if you look beneath the covers you'll find that the BBC have some excessively high earning staff, and that recruitment of vital posts comes more often than not from within their own PC ranks.

          The BBC would be fined heavily for anti competitive behaviour were this a genuine market, and that is the point; this is a state/licence fee funded organisation, operating in a commercial setting, staffed by a mix of people (particularly in senior positions) whose aggregate political and social philosophy is at variance with the population they presume to serve. It does not matter what you or I think, but it does matter what people want to see (and fewer repeats by this wealthy broadcaster would be a start) and what the truth is, and it certainly is not (e.g.) twisting Neil Kinnock's words to upset US politicians (I hereby show less bias than the supposedly unbiased BBC:

          BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson; "We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking." Mark Thompson: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left.". Andrew Marr: "The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large [All this] creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”. Telegraph: "Horrible Histories criticised for inaccuracy after showing fictional Florence Nightingale racially discriminate against black nurse Mary Seacole, BBC Trust finds" "I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’". Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter.

          You can Grep this stuff on the web, and worse.

      2. Turtle

        @sabroni Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        The media's pretty powerful; are you including them amongst the "powerful that need to be held to account"?

        1. Scubaman66

          Re: @sabroni Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          I don't know if the OP does but I most certainly do include the media.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power.

        They seem to have moved well beyond "starting to". :(

      4. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        Yeeeessss, but this was an interview of an outspoken terrorist, a part of a bogus state "ISIS" (more appropriately known as Daesh, or something underfoot), and it has bugger all to do with holding the powerful to account. FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          "FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered."

          You know what? I don't actually totally disagree with you. I do feel that there is too much chatting and not enough action on the subject of how to deal with ISIS, especially in the west. People are suffering under these barbarians and we're not actually doing much about it.

          Russia, on the other hand, seems to have little hesitation in taking direct action, so I don't think it's the "Marxists" who are doing the prognosticating any more than its "Capitalists" who are bogging actions down in endless meetings and debates.

    5. dogged

      Re: So what?

      > I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details.

      Let's take a hypothetical situation. Say you're a member of some essentially harmless but Government-hated group like the Pirate Party or Occupy or Liberty or Amnesty. Suppose you agree to an interview with a journalist, and they take notes and record your conversation as per normal. They agree to withhold your name from the published copy because that might make you (even more of) a target.

      Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record.

      You're in the shit.

      The next thing that happens is that word gets around. Pretty soon, nobody will give interviews. What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported.

      If that looks a lot like the current state of affairs, it's not a coincidence.

      1. dogged

        Re: So what?

        Addendum -

        In this case, it's even worse. Suppose this journalist interviewed you in your capacity as a member of Liberty or Amnesty. But the police seized the laptop on the grounds that journalist had also interviewed an ISIS member (and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal).

        But the police got your details and your conversation too. They got the journalist's pre-copy. Suppose some of what you said was used along with some of what the ISIS guy said? Boom. You're now deep in with ISIS and so is every other member of Amnesty. Imagine what a quiet leak to the Daily Mail could do with that. Imagine the idiot public outcry, the campaigns to get your group - which only cares about human rights and civil liberties - banned as terrorists.

        Imagine David Cameron rubbing his hands with delight. Or Paul Dacre. Or Rupert Murdoch.

        Honestly, this is a travesty. It must stop.

        1. Efros

          Re: So what?

          "membership of a group is not illegal"

          That very much depends on the group, there are proscribed groups and organizations, membership of which is punishable by law.

          https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

          I do agree with the rest of what you said though.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So what?

            And one of those proscribed groups is ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. Your continued support of those groups makes you suspect and anything you say suspect, Fruitoftheloon!

        2. Scorchio!!

          Re: So what?

          "(and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal)."

          Wrong, and, remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Membership of organisations such as (from memory) IRA, PIRA, the UDA, the Red Hand Gang, Al Mahajiroun, ISIS (properly known in the middle east as Daesh) and such is illegal. Why? Because they want to kill people like you, me and so on. This is how the democratic rights of people in these fora are protected though, reading things that are printed here, one might be forgiven for wondering... ...about the state of education in this country, about the state of awareness in people whom the like of Daesh/ISIL want to kill, most especially about the ability of people to read and their powers of discrimination (independence of thought if you like) and so on; people who are members of murderous organisations that are at self declared war with this country know such organisations to be proscribed. Terrorism is an offence, to say nothing of an affront to human rights, to democracy (viewed by Plato as the least evil option available) and to common sense.

          If you and people like you are arguing these points as an exercise, well you fail miserably. If you mean it, have a nice death when your turn comes at the hands of these people. As you read my lines think of the poor Yasidi girls that have been repeatedly raped by these barbarians and made pregnant, think about the show executions by axe, RPG7, knife and the autos da fe experienced by the like of that poor Jordanian pilot who, one can reasonably argue, held a more faithful view of Islam than the Islamo-facists of Daesh, Al Mahajiroun and others.

          You are welcome to go out there, tell them you are not a believer, and 'live the dream'. Why don't you do that and come back in a year with a report?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        "Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record."

        Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

        1. fruitoftheloon
          FAIL

          @Boltar: Re: So what?

          Boltar,

          perhaps a stone tablet would have been better eh?

          Regards,

          jay

        2. dogged

          Re: So what?

          > Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record?

          Because Apple gave him a 25% discount and because that's what people do.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

          What should he have done then? Memorise the discussion and hope he got it right when writing the story, and only use quill and ink for writing it? And only use pigeons to communicate?

          What he could have done is work off USB sticks per story - on OSX you can even set it up that that crypto is transparent until someone tries to use it on another machine - but under RIPA he'll have to provide password anyway or face contempt of court charges.

          I agree that this is a heavy handed approach, and I don't see this as correct. As far as the story currently goes, this story is not assisting in terrorism and so RIPA should not have been used. That is, based on the currently available facts.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

          That's not just stupid, that's beyond stupid.

          You wouldn't be working for the TLA's would you? :(

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          > Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record?

          That observation is actually correct, at least in my experience with the journalists I have dealt with. Appropriate precautions were taken, proportionate to how sensitive the information was.

          If the journalist was doing his job thoroughly, chances are that no useful information will be obtained about the target by the police.

          This, however, still leaves open the question rightly pointed out by others of third party information disclosure. Information which may not, by itself, merit special precautions, but when combined with other sources may become compromising.

      3. John Lilburne

        Re: So what?

        "What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported."

        This is what already happens. You have journalist either interview 'dissident' in darkened room, and disguised voice, or its some hairy tattoo'd dork, wearing a Tshirt with last months pizza and coffee stains. They then cut to some well dressed fellow in a bright smart office, with a row of hardback books behind him, dissing everything that previous oink said.

      4. kmac499

        Re: So what?

        And a few more case studies could be

        1) A contractor working on the Chinese built Hinckley power station concerned about standards

        2) A care worker in a badly run hospital

        3) A prison officer in a prison with corrupt fellow officers

        4) A taxi driver in Rotherham (for example) concerned about the behaviour of other drivers

        5) Etc..

        The Press are afforded a degree of 'legal' protection because when their profession is working at it's best; it is on the side of the weak against the powerful. They aren't always right, but which of us are?

        1. x 7

          Re: So what?

          none of those correspond or correlate in any way to a journalist interviewing and giving publication to the views of a murdering terrorist with a twisted totalitarian genocidal agenda

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like