There are three questions I think all journalists should ask when looking at the ongoing case between David Miranda, The Guardian and the various intelligence agencies in both the UK and US;
1. In the digital age, what 'defines' a journalist- who can be classified as a journalist?
2. Does the work of journalists threaten national security?
3.What is the role of journalists today?
The questions come in light of continuing controversy over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald initially argued that his partner had gone to visit their mutual friend, and therefore was an ordinary civilian; the detainment of Mr.Miranda- and the questioning he received by UK security services in regard to future leaks by his partner were therefore uncalled for, and potentially illegal.
Yet reluctantly, I think Louise Mensch (the former Tory MP turned....something in the US) actually makes some good observations in her blog. Of course, while there is a bit too much praise of UK security services, she has a point that Mr.Miranda was meeting Laura Poitras- the film maker assisting Greenwald. Further, Miranda's flights were paid for by The Guardian, and the flash drives he held are said to have encrypted data on them- presumably related to his husband's continuing work.
In that case- does that make him a journalist?
On the one hand, yes- after all, he's carrying data with the intent of publication, and depending on how you 'define' journalism, carrying data can be seen as part of the gathering process (much like the process of gathering photos/interviews and then process of physically taking it back to a newsroom). The question that remains in this case, is whether Miranda actually knew what was on the flash drives; if they were encrypted, and he's not involved in the journalistic side of the NSA files, then perhaps he should be considered a courier?
Professor Richard Sambrook of Cardiff University's school of Journalism likens this to a proxy- whereby Miranda was being used as a means of transferring data offline- essentially part of the journalistic practice. Those who are defending UK security services argue that much like drug mules, holding Miranda can be justified on this basis- especially if the data he's carrying could be used by terrorist organisations or individuals with other vested interests.
Here's the real problem at hand; The law hasn't actually accommodated a coherent legal framework for the management and distribution of data.
This isn't just important for investigative journalists, but for all of us as what we engage in more digital mediums. Consider the problems that occur via peer-to-peer networks, often accused of causing media companies to lose money due to copyright infringement. The Digital Economy Act 2010 adresses this problem (ineffectively) through encouraging ISPs to block transmissions of data to a particular computer.
But surely this is different for public data concerning the state, particularly in light of open government license? - so what about the means of transmission? I'd hesitate in arguing that the data Mr.Miranda was carrying was subject to any form of private ownership or subject to a form of copyright that would fit into the model posited by the DEA 2010. Regardless of what capacity Miranda was working in, carrying the data on flash drives didn't overtly breach any existing laws, and while elaborate, is a staple component of investigative journalism, particularly with information we are unable to gain under the existing Freedom of Information act. The only plausible defence the security services might have, would be if there was a significant threat to the U.K- a fact of which there is little evidence to back up.
This isn't to say the security services were totally in the wrong- I'd just argue that it was focused in the wrong place. How was this data actually found? Who are the other sources that leaked the information- and what is the process by which Greenwald and the Guardian are selecting and editing cables?
I think these are far more interesting questions, which are much more relevant to journalism and public accountability.
No comments:
Post a Comment