I suppose you could say that the police "intimidate" criminals by threatening to arrest them as well but it would make no more sense than you are making. Like a parent "intimidates" a child by grounding them instead of throwing into the street to fend for themselves.
The Government had a legal case, they offered the Guardian a solution which was quicker and less disruptive to their business.
Is your argument that the should not have compromised and just launched a case to have the Guardian shut down immediately? Is that your argument?
Because if not then you have very little evidence to say the Government were not being reasonable.
In a reasonable country with the rule of law, it's always safe to tell the police to go away and come back when they have a warrant.
According to you, the law mandated that this equipment be destroyed. The correct way for the government to handle this would be to ask, and if they object, come back with a court order. With the court order in hand, you destroy the equipment.
Threatening to destroy the entire company when they haven't even violated the law yet is absolutely intimidation.
Imagine, for example, that you've been pulled over in your car by the police. They ask if they can search your car for drugs.
You can say yes, of course. Then they'll search, and if they find anything, you'll go off to jail.
Here in the US, at least, you can also say "no". At this point, the officer can either let you go, or if he has sufficient cause to carry out a search against your wishes, he can detain you and carry out the search.
All well and good so far. The problem is when you say "no" and the police officer says, "If you don't let me search this car, I will put you in prison." Any threat by law enforcement of punishment beyond what the law actually provides for what you've actually done is intimidation.
Let us have the laptops or we detain you and search everything.
The Guardian. OK. You can have them.
Is exactly the same as your example of reasonable policing for a vehicle search. > Here in the US, at least, you can also say "no". At this point, the officer can either let you go, or if he has sufficient cause to carry out a search against your wishes, he can detain you and carry out the search.
Apparently it is not exactly what happened, because the government was threatening to shut them down. Your scenario does not include anything like that.
Some people define "reasonable" as not seizing information from journalists, destroying their stuff, offering them choices that include getting shut down...
Edit: How effectively they can cloak themselves in legalism is beside the point.
Edit 2: I'm resisting writing more, because there has to be a Godwin's Law equivalent for when you start quoting dictionary definitions at people. Also I've made more than enough flip remarks that could be used against me by a future authoritarian regime...
Edit the third: I'm sympathetic to your arguments about mundane classified data handling, particularly as [ed: you're] a mundane classified data handler, but I'm afraid government agents fucking with journalists gives me strong feelings of Not Okay.
The Government didn't fuck with Journalists. Journalists tried to fuck with the Government and got owned. Exactly the same way the software engineers of the Valley were being owned by the NSA for years.
I suppose you could say that the police "intimidate" criminals by threatening to arrest them as well but it would make no more sense than you are making. Like a parent "intimidates" a child by grounding them instead of throwing into the street to fend for themselves.
The Government had a legal case, they offered the Guardian a solution which was quicker and less disruptive to their business.
Is your argument that the should not have compromised and just launched a case to have the Guardian shut down immediately? Is that your argument?
Because if not then you have very little evidence to say the Government were not being reasonable.