Hacker News Reader

Comment by andy_ppp | Hacker News Reader

You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws:

The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at the Guardian, liable for prosecution—with up to 14 years in jail.

It seems totally futile to stand up to these people.

View on HN

> and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws:

No, that's not a proposal of the Law Commission report (which isn't a proposed new law).

Here's the document. It's over 300 pages long. The consultation is still open.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data...

The report gathers information about all the whistleblowing protection law in the UK; all the secrecy protection law (which exists in some weird places; and laws in other countries.

The 14 years comes from 2 places:

1) comparing the English "Official Secrets Act" maximum sentence (currently 2 years) with the equivalent in Canada (currently 14 years). But the report does not propose, even tentatively, that the English maximum is extended to 14 years.

2) Comparing the maximum sentence under the official secrets act with other laws. For example:

> 3.184 The maximum sentence for the offences contained in the Official Secrets Act 1989 is the same as many other offences that criminalise the unauthorised disclosure of information. For example, it is an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment for an employee of the National Lottery Commission to disclose information that has been supplied by Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs that relates to a person whose identity is specified in the information or whose identity can be deduced from the information. This is the same maximum sentence available for an unauthorised disclosure that, to take one example, damages the capability of the armed forces to carry out their tasks.

One effect is to lengthen the maximum sentence under the Official Secrets Act, but another might be to reduce the sentences in all these other laws.

Thanks for this! It'll take me a while to read but I'll have a look later. Great that the original article and my comment has been corrected by someone with more information.

I agree that it's worrying that UK gov wants more surveillance powers and doesn't seem to respect privacy. And police illegally spying on people is really worrying.

>English "Official Secrets Act" maximum sentence (currently 2 years)

> This is the same maximum sentence available for an unauthorised disclosure that, to take one example, damages the capability of the armed forces to carry out their tasks.

I had to look that up - that's incredible. For all the fuss made about it 2 years seems very short. I was under the impression these kind of things carried passive penalties. Though I guess there's extra charges if you reveal secrets to an enemy or something.

If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.

And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate.

They already won.

Mate, the battle may have been lost but the war never ends.

This level of discourse is very embarrassing for HN.

I actually find this comment very embarrassing.

Yes, your comments are. Clearly we needed reminding and the point needed to be underscored.

Eugh. Such a shame

Not as embarrassing as your comment I'm afraid. I'd refrain from commenting like that in the future.

The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.

If you can suggest one?

History is filled with suggestions.

Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?

The campaign of the ANC* was peaceful?

*edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...

No, but the transition was peaceful. FW de Klerk freely gave the power across instead of being murdered in his bed or trying to set fire to "the homelands".

Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.

People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome.

The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words):

"Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)."

Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela.

India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent.

Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others.

And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that.

Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ...

But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate.

[1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence

"Gandhi sent out his forces" LOLL!! He wasnt in command either! I need what you are smoking!

Seriously? Comparing Che to Ghandi? What a farce.

I said a peaceful transition, not a peaceful protest.

A non-peaceful transition of power is what happened in Zimbabwe, or Mozambique, or DRC or so many other African countries when the colonial forces let go of the reigns.

Irish War of Independence? Hungarian Revolution of 1848? A little harder if you don't count independence efforts of distinct groups of people. Solidarność? Storming of the Bastille? Hungarian Revolution of 1956?

It's fairly pointless to list examples, as they are everywhere. Sometimes the goal is achieved more easily, sometimes it takes decades. But it can work.

You mean, like an election?

Lol that an election in the UK will change the direction of the country in terms of civil liberties. No one with a remote chance of winning will do that. (and the upcoming election send like it will just give Theresa May a free hand to do what she wants)

Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security.

I happen to believe that trade off has gone a bit far and I'm worried that significant further erosion of civil liberties would start causing some serious issues, but lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public. Whining about living in a police state isn't going to be very productive, or lend that struggle much credibility.

Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security.

The results of surveys on this issue are interesting.

A clear majority of people in the UK do typically back some of the stronger surveillance and security measures, when (as is almost always the case) they are presented as giving the police and security services greater powers to prevent serious crime and terrorism. I mean, who doesn't want to prevent serious crime and terrorism?

On the other hand, when presented with more complete information about the actual laws that have been passed, such as the much wider range of government departments who have been given such powers, or when questioned in a way that demonstrates they themselves are subject to the same intrusions, many more people express concern and a lot object strongly.

Surveys also show pretty consistently that the vast majority of people don't know even roughly what the actual situation is, and assume it is more the former than the latter. For example, many people didn't even know about the increased surveillance powers granted a few months ago. Popular support is based on trust in our government and public services, rather than knowing the facts.

lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public

Unfortunately, the political party with the most credible basis for arguing in favour of stronger civil liberties seems to have decided they want this election to be about exactly one issue, Brexit. Whether or not that strategy works out for them over the next couple of months, it makes it highly unlikely that other important issues like this will even make it into the public debate at all.

Yes. That's why, after the "brexit election" a second election needs to be held. You know, to make sure the populace really meant it.

Of course, that's an improvement over the rest of Europe. Last time Europe got voted out of parliament they didn't even bother with redoing the election. They just went directly against the election results, like in Greece.

Why does anyone still pretend at this point ?

>to make sure the populace really meant it

Bizarre comment. Do you really think the election has a credible chance of overturning the result of the referendum? Or that this is the reason it's being held?

Every time an elected government does something random poster on HN or elsewhere doesn't like, it's the end of democracy and a conspiracy of the elite.

I voted Remain and still believe leaving the EU will harm Britain and the electorate was mislead and conned. But you know what? The electorate are all grown-ups that had access to the same information that I do. We hold regular elections to allow the electorate to change their mind if they are conned. But if they obstinately and persistently refuse to see things my way, well that's fine. Well it isn't, but I'm not going to throw all my toys out of the pram and start crying about it. Politics is messy and imperfect mainly because it's a reflection of us, the voters. Uncomfortable, but true.

> The electorate are all grown-ups that had access to the same information that I do

I am not sure I have ever heard such trust in the electorate. Isn't an uninformed electorate a huge problem in most western democracies?

Yes I believe an uninformed electorate is a significant problem, but you can force people to be interested in things, care about them or read the same magazines and web sites you or I do. But this is why I believe in representative democracy. Ideally you elect people you trust to know this stuff better than you and make sound judgments. But if you get it wrong, well that's why we have fresh elections every few years.

>It doesn't work and never has;

You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.

Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. A look at how protesting has worked in the past decades, with a few notable exceptions, will show you that protesting does little to alter the status quo.

>Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners.

Protesting is not just standing around with some banners. Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, etc. are all part of it, and have brought down many a government.

It's not about "conscience" -- except if we mean some tame gatherings where people stand quietly and hold some picket signs for a few hours and then go home.

It certainly has worked in the past, but in more recent times in a western 'democracy'?

On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.

What happened? We went to war.

That happens all the time in history too. There are thousands of failed demonstrations, protests, etc.

Demonstrations are not some guaranteed method that will always bend those in power: it's just one of the few methods that affect change and have in the past.

If demonstrations were all that it took every time, then the French wouldn't have to behead their king, and the Americans wouldn't have to fight a revolution.

It's also about how seriously those people mean it. Marching for a day is useless if you don't also change how you act politically, inform people, change your buying habits (e.g. boycott some company), vote differently, go on strike, etc.

Else, who cares if they protested? They just had their fun for a day and went back to watching their favorite TV series. They didn't even mean it that much themselves.

With a much smaller coalition than for the Afghanistan war---which had less demonstrations against it in eg Germany. So perhaps the amount of protesting did make a difference in some countries?

It works; it's just that the people fighting will be the one paying the worst price and getting the least benefits. Benefits will then go to the people than not only did nothing, but actively made things harder to fight.

Life is unfair that way.

I'll agree on that, maybe the solution is to keep one step ahead at all times.

The problem there is that as techies we can keep one step ahead of what the average citizen could do (whether that is one step ahead of the authorities is another matter) but any popular movement that could emerge wouldn't be full of just techies.

That's one of the reasons why the concept of the 'cell' has emerged in multiple places in multiple movements, the only way to keep the organisation as a whole going under massive scrutiny from the authorities is to internally partition it so that compromise of one cell doesn't compromise the others, this only works for a longer period of time if the cell contacts up the tree are beyond the reach of the authorities for either political reasons (Sinn Fein in Ireland) or judicial reasons (they are outside the country in a place they can't be extradited from).

There is a fascinating history of the ANC in South Africa using a digital technology and long distance lines to London as a clearing house for information to avoid the security services in South Africa during apartheid.

> Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has;

The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.

The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?

> The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?

You say that like the current situation is no better than what came before the civil rights movement.

You say that like the current situation doesn't still garner a lot of attention.

What?

You can still vote with your feet.

Well tried scotland yard, well tried...

>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws

Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok?

You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.

Is it treason to expose abuses of power and illegal practices?

Yes it is.

Anyone who works in a classified/borderline field signs multiple documents that skirt around this, limit rights, and especially allow some form of nonjudicial prosecution.

As for that being right or wrong on either side, that is a long and frustrating argument.

Not really. There can be whistleblower protections that supercede other laws and contracts. There can be illegal contracts, which are not valid regardless of whether you sign them. Do you believe every issue is governed by a single law that is set in stone for eternity?

Are laws set in stone for eternity? No.

Must acts that are committed now be judged by the laws that exist now? Yes.

How do laws change? Are the changes ever retroactive? Do laws ever exist on the books longer than they are enforced or considered moral? Seems like everything is black and white for you, but reality rather disagrees.

Anyway, there already are whistleblower protection laws in many places.

I hold this comment to be untrue. It is clear in common-law that our peers may find a law to be untenable.

Whistleblower laws haven't been working well. A wrong step could get you excluded from protections, put you in a situation where you can't defend yourself, you could be in a field where other organizations can bully their way in making everything more complex, if you're lucky you could just get kicked out with black marks on your records (with any information related sealed), if you do everything right it could end up pretty much ignored (or lost in paperwork) and similar.

Why should we not support those who expose wrongdoing? That's the core of the issue you're ignoring here, whistleblowing is not just releasing whatever things you want.

If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place hardly sounds like "treason".

> then we should make them legal and clearly defined

We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act...

And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts

https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-whi...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert-franci...

Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly defined as legal.

I don't think we should make these things legal, personally, but I think they should either be legal so whistleblowing doesn't make sense or illegal and whistleblowing is encouraged.

We have made surveillance legal, and provided a framework of protections, under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Before RIPA we had a bunch of different public bodies using surveillance with little control over what they were doing. After RIPA they can still use surveillance if they follow the correct procedures, and some of the abuses were reigned in.

The police especially have strong powers to use surveillance.

And so something that falls entirely within both the letter and spirit of those regulations wouldn't be something a person would have protections for 'whistleblowing', right? Since it's not really whistleblowing in those cases.

England has some weird bits of law.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data...

If you leak data that damages the capability of the armed forces to carry out their tasks the maximum sentence is 2 years.

Compare that to:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cp230_pr...

> By way of contrast, sections 57 – 59 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, when commenced, will make it an offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment for a Crown servant to disclose without authorisation anything to do with the existence or implementation of particular warrants granted pursuant to the Investigatory Powers Act, including the content of intercepted material and related communications data.

So, while it might be right that official secrets is made more restrictive, but with an increased max sentence, that is a bit worrying because other law tends to anchor to OSA sentences, and we don't want longer sentences all over other data privacy laws.

So you may have some comparisons... How many people were actually killed by the military operations uncovered by snowden/Assange versus how many people were killed by the disclosure itself...

It's not treason to warn your nation about internal usurpers, and that's what some police were guilty of here. In a democracy, power belongs to the people, and when the government takes that away and operates in excess of their remit, they are the ones who are guilty of treason, not the whistleblower.

Why?

Per the article in the Guardian, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating the claims.

I'll note that the corroboration was passwords of politically active people, which frankly doesn't do anything to implicate law enforcement. This may well simply be yet another "whistleblower" attempting to sow distrust of any authorities who are not beholden to their own influence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com