Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3947)	12/17/2002 12:54:03 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

UK's Official Secrets Act: hmso.gov.uk Abuses of the OSA: officialsecretsact.org If you read through the cases of use and abuse of the act detailed on this site you may well come to the conclusion that an "official secret" is anything that might cause embarrassment to the government. The Official Secrets Act 1989 has no public interest clause to offer protection to whistleblowers or journalists; it does not allow the public a "right to know". Britain's obsessive desire for secrecy refuses the British taxpayer access to information regarding incompetence, illegality or wrongdoings financed by their taxes. The 1985 Ponting case was in some ways the landmark Official Secrets case. Clive Ponting, who had worked at the Ministry of Defence, walked free from court after a jury cleared him of breaking the Official Secrets Act. It was hailed as a victory for the jury system. The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him. Ponting had been charged with leaking an internal MoD document concerning the General Belgrano, the Argentinian cruiser which British forces sank during the 1982 Falklands War, killing 360 people. The government line had been that the Belgrano was threatening British lives when it was sunk. But the document leaked by Ponting indicated it was sailing out of the exclusion zone. Its publication was a huge embarrassment for Lady Thatcher's government. ........................................................ The European Court of Human Rights later held that the UK's actions had violated the right to freedom of speech. news.bbc.co.uk Just as it is illegal for an MI5 agent to reveal secrets about the machinations of Britain's spy networks, so too are government-employed cleaners barred from revealing when they have their coffee breaks. The Official Secrets Act is a catch-all piece of legislation that prevents criticism or discussion of the British government's employees with the outside world. netfreedom.org Interestingly, Ireland also has one: 193.120.124.98 It has a provision for secret trials: 193.120.124.98 A sad day for the auld sod. That well known paragon of democracy, Malaysia, also has one: freeanwar.com Of course I believe what's being proposed will not be restricted to use in national security/safety matters. I believe the state will inevitably seize the opportunity to weaken the power of all opposition, including domestic political dissent or even criticism. Yes. Governments cannot resist the temptation of power.

To: E who wrote (3947)	12/17/2002 6:58:09 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

The OSA is a piece of ridiculous outdated catch-all which is generally used to conceal stuff the state (i.e., bureaucrats) would be embarrassed to have you know - incompetence, laziness and petty corruption. It's of minimal use or relevance against real spies. It's for stopping the populace knowing too much about what is done in its name, and protecting the interests and public face of ministers etc. In other words, I'm violently anti - as I am any censorship or abrogation of reasonable freedom by government - and I had hoped that under US influence from FOIA we might have our stupid laws removed... Our main protection, IMO, is the total incompetence of government. But this only works in the longer term, in the near term they can still royally f*ck things up and make individual lives a misery.