Guardian was 'entirely correct' to publish NSA stories, says Vince Cable

Guardian was 'entirely correct' to publish NSA stories, says Vince Cable | Media | theguardian.com: "In an interview on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Cable said that "arguably" Britain did not have proper oversight of the domestic intelligence service MI5, overseas agency MI6 and eavesdropping centre GCHQ.
Cable confirmed a report in the Guardian that the deputy prime minister's aides are to start conversations in Whitehall about improving the legal oversight of the intelligence agencies in light of Snowden's revelations. These suggest that powerful new technologies appear to have outstripped the current system of legislative and political oversight.
The business secretary said: "I think the Guardian has done a very considerable public service … The conclusion which Nick Clegg came to, and set out this morning, is that we do need to have proper political oversight of the intelligence services and arguably we haven't until now. What they [the Guardian] did was, as journalists, entirely correct and right. Mr Snowden is a different kettle of fish."" 'via Blog this'

Gresham Lecture on Leveson: Prof. George Brock

"The heart ofLeveson is privacy versus free expression, and it is important to remember that this is a clash of rights. You cannot solve a clash of rights. You cannot settle it definitively. You can only manage it, and the search is for the best balance.

As a background to Leveson, there were two important decisions in the recent past which are part of the story. There was the Data Protection Act in 1998, which controlled how information could be retrieved from databases. There were no prison penalties for journalists, there was a public interest defence, and the Act set up the office of something called the Information Commissioner. 

Before that, strictly on the privacy track, there had been in Inquiry in 1990 by a distinguished lawyer called Sir David Calcutt. He was very scathing about the self-regulation system for the press, considering it not in order. He gave them a short number of years to improve things, held a second, brief re-visiting Inquiry in 1992, reported back in 1993 and said there should be a privacy law – this just is not good enough, you are going to have to do much better. One way or another, by combination of the fact that this was the John Major Government in the midst of European crises (and a good many others), and the fact that there was very powerful lobbying by the press groups, Calcutt’s proposals were derailed. 

They were brought back in some form in the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into British law in 1998. However, that created a privacy law by simply saying there is a right to the freedom of expression and there is a right to privacy. It made those two flat statements and then left the judges in the courts to sort out everything after that. It did not work perfectly.

Please note that both of these laws, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act, have public interest tests of sorts built into them. Public interest tests come in various forms. They are essentially grounds on which an apparent breach of the law may be justified. They are a way of testing ends against means."

Maria Miller's statement on press regulation

Maria Miller's statement on press regulation - full text | Media | theguardian.com: "all involved in the process now consider a royal charter, to oversee this regulatory body, to be the correct way forward. Six months ago this seemed impossible.
What we are now talking about are differences of opinions in how a royal charter should be constructed.
The committee of the privy council is unable to recommend the press' proposal for a royal charter be granted. Whilst there are areas where it is acceptable, it is unable to comply with some fundamental Leveson principles and government policy, such as independence and access to arbitration. A copy of this recommendation letter has been placed in the library of both houses.
In the light of this, we will be taking forward the cross-party charter which was debated in this house.
I can therefore tell all members of this house that the cross-party charter will be on the agenda at a specially convened meeting of the privy council on 30 October.
In the interim, we must finish making our charter workable, so it will meaningfully deliver independent and effective self-regulation." 'via Blog this'

Leveson in front of Lords Committee Evidence Session

Live on Parliament TV now as part of their Inquiries Act 2005 evidence.

Ed Miliband letter to Lord Rothermere, proprietor of Daily Mail & General Trust

Labour Press — Ed Miliband letter to Lord Rothermere: "I was told by one of my relatives late yesterday evening that a reporter from the Mail on Sunday had found her way into the event uninvited. I also discovered that, once there, she approached members of my family seeking comments on the controversy over the Daily Mail’s description of my late father as someone who “hated Britain”.
My wider family, who are not in public life, feel understandably appalled and shocked that this can have happened.
The Editor of the Mail on Sunday has since confirmed to my office that a journalist from his newspaper did indeed attend the memorial uninvited with the intention of seeking information for publication this weekend." 'via Blog this'

"The surrender of privacy: is the state to blame?" Sussex: 23 Oct 18:30-19:30

Events : News and events : Law : University of Sussex: "The surrender of privacy: is the state to blame?
Wednesday 23 October 18:30 until 19:30 Chowen lecture theatre, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Speaker: The Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE, QC
The Issues in Criminal Justice series is returning this term with Lord Carlile as our guest speaker. His practice is focused upon serious crime, local government and public law. He specialises in the civil and criminal aspects of major commercial fraud cases, and has appeared in many leading criminal cases receiving his CBE in the 2012 New Year Honours for services to national security.
This is an open public lecture and everyone is welcome to attend, but we do ask that you book your place as numbers are limited." 'via Blog this'

Ken Auletta: Can the Guardian Take Its Aggressive Investigations Global? : The New Yorker

Ken Auletta: Can the Guardian Take Its Aggressive Investigations Global? : The New Yorker: The Guardian broke the stories of phone hacking by Murdoch's journalists, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. This is a lengthy set of interviews that analyzes how investigative journalism works.
"With stories of such complexity, a newspaper often delays publication while it meets with government officials, who try to persuade editors of the harm that would come from publication. The Guardian did seek comment from government officials about the revelations. But Greenwald, outraged by the content of the material, pushed to publish quickly. “I was getting really frustrated,” he told me. “I was putting a lot of pressure on them and insinuating that I was going to go publish elsewhere.” He helped produce five stories that ran on five consecutive days in June. “I wanted people in Washington to have fear in their hearts over how this journalism was going to be done, over the unpredictability of it,” he said. “Of the fact that we were going to be completely unrestrained by the unwritten rules of American journalism." 'via Blog this'