Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Aug 2013 10:27 UTC, submitted by l3v1
So. There we are. The foundation of Groklaw is over. I can't do Groklaw without your input. I was never exaggerating about that when we won awards. It really was a collaborative effort, and there is now no private way, evidently, to collaborate.

I'm really sorry that it's so. I loved doing Groklaw, and I believe we really made a significant contribution. But even that turns out to be less than we thought, or less than I hoped for, anyway. My hope was always to show you that there is beauty and safety in the rule of law, that civilization actually depends on it. How quaint.

Quaint indeed.

Groklaw is shutting down. A huge loss, as the site's contributions to various ridiculous lawsuits, like the SCO one about Linux, or the even crazier one from Oracle about Java, were invaluable. The reasons are sound, though - without secure, private communications, the collaborative effort that is Groklaw cannot function.

A sad day.

Thread beginning with comment 570209
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think this may be a bit alarmist
by Tony Swash on Tue 20th Aug 2013 17:03 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:

Straight off I should say I have read the Guardian every day for four decades, I fully support the right of newspapers to expose official malpractice and think is a scandal that under the guise of protecting against terrorism journalists and those close to them are harassed because of the exposure of embarrassing new stories. I should also point out that my daughter is a journalist at the Guardian.

Having said all that I think it is a baseless exaggeration to claim that the British government threatened to, or even could, shut down a newspaper. What was threatened was to shut down this particular story, presumably through some sort of court injunction. Whether the application for such a story specific injunction would have succeeded is not certain although such injunctions are granted way too frequently in the UK usually under the guise of protecting celebrity privacy or to prevent publication of what is deemed to be potentially libellous materials.

I think that we must remain focussed on the very important real issue which is that legislation giving unusually draconian powers to the security forces to detain people at airports, which it was argued were required to prevent imminent possible terrorist attacks, were actually used against someone who clearly has no connection to terrorism and which no member of the security forces or the UK government has ever suggested has any connection to terrorist activity.

I understand the need to give legally defined powers to the security forces to act decisively when it is suspected an imminent threat is looming but once in place the actual use of such powers must be monitored very closely in order to prevent the sort casual extension of those powers into non-terrost areas of activity. I am hoping this issue will continue to generate pressure for some sort of inquiry into who authorised the detention of the journalist's partner using such powers as it was clearly an abuse of the system.

BTW doesn't the image of the the two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just about sum up how out of touch and ludicrous some parts of the security system are in the face of modern communication technology. I suspect they knew it was futile and pointless but like all good career bureaucrats needed to be able to show that something, no matter how laughable, was being done.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:

While I agree with what you say for the most part, keep in mind that every hard drive in the office was destroyed. If that was there only office, they would have effectively been destroyed. You can't really run a newspaper without computers any more. Who knows how long it will take that office to get back up and running.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tupp Member since:

He posted in the wrong thread. Apparently, it was too late to delete the post. He explained mistake in the other thread -- not here.

Reply Parent Score: 3