A legal theory regarding the destruction of The Guardian's hard drives

[FarCenter]

From the technical point of view, destroying specific computer equipment containing encrypted files makes no sense, since there are other copies in other places.

However, it is likely that someone high up at The Guardian was asked whether the equipment contained the only copies in possession of the Guardian in the UK. Given assurances that this was the case, the equipment was destroyed.

If subsequently, The Guardian brings into the UK and publishes in the UK the files, said high up person at The Guardian is in a great deal of trouble.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether other copies exist. The Guardian will not publish them in the UK, nor likely elsewhere.

[snappyturtle]

1. No, as I understand it Rusberger, the Guardian editor, told

the authorities there were other copies. He added the Guardian
would continue it's reporting of Snowden from other locations
around the world. That's what I recall.

[FarCenter]

4. Yes, they could continue to report from their New York subsidiary, for which GG actually works.

But not on their UK website.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. What are you talking about?

[CincyDem]

3. Possible, but one option often used to circumvent this is...

...to have some small, out of the way backwoods international paper publish the original story and then the guardian can report on that news. The news that the guardian would be reporting is that the story was published and what it said but they wouldn't lay claim to the veracity of the content.

Classic FAUX strategy - toss out an opinion in the morning, source it at noon with the fact being that it was said, and by dinner the opinion is magically transformed into a fact.

I'm sure the guardian isn't done with this story.

[FarCenter]

5. That information has been published does not declassify it, nor make it legal to publish in the UK