More secret files found on train

[emad]

More confidential government files were found on a train earlier this week, it has been revealed.

The Independent on Sunday says it was handed the documents, which cover fighting global terrorist funding, drugs trafficking and money laundering.

The files, relating to a meeting of financial crime experts, were found on the same day as another batch of secret papers were handed to the BBC.

A Treasury spokesman said the government was "extremely concerned".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7455084.stm


SOUNDS increasingly like a classic counterintelligence op.
Nothing like planting semi-authentic looking stuff to draw attention away from something much worse...

[dipsydoodle]

1. Yes - very convenient

Just a simple way of getting information into the press to keep the population spooked.

[T_i_B]

3. Cock-up, not conspiracy

The problems with losing sensitive information, be it Child Benefit data or top secret dossiers reflect extremely badly on the government so it's difficult to see this any anything other then a massive cock-up.

And these cock-ups need to stop ASAP for the government's own sake. Data management is becoming a serious problem for the government.

[truebrit71]

2. One dolt leaving something on a train is an accident...two is more than a coincidence i think...

...If the documents are that super-secret why are they being transported that way...?? I seem to recall in the old days when the Ruskies were the baddies, getting their hands on something like this would have been pure gold...now that we have changed enemies top secret documents like this are taken on trains as reading material instead of the Daily Mail?

I'm not buying it...

[emad]

4. Counter-intelligence is a multi-convoluted beast.

Anybody authorised to handle classified material has to sign the Official Secrets Act.
This imposes severe penalties for cavalier handling of anything secret.

The current pandemic of 'documents on trains' etc smacks of a sophisticated counter intelligence operation.

[moggie]

5. I've signed the OSA

It's a formality, designed to reduce the likelihood of you screwing up. Signing it doesn't increase the penalties, and everyone is bound by it, whether or not they've signed.

The government is currently undergoing a big exercise to review and tighten up its handling of data. Lots of money being spent, lots of scurrying around like headless chickens because "something must be done". So it's particularly galling for those of us who are genuinely trying to do the right thing when civil servants and ministers just leave the stuff lying around.

[emad]

6. If you have signed it then you will know that the penalty for disclosing

that very fact is up to five years in jail, an unlimited fine, loss of any civil service pension (if applicable) and a criminal record.

[moggie]

7. Cite, please

You may be thinking of section two of the 1911 act, which made it an offence to disclose pretty much any official information. This was replaced by the 1989 act, which defines six specific categories of official information and makes it an offence to disclose information only if disclosure is damaging - except for members of the security and intelligence services, for whom there is no damage test if they disclose without authority any information about security or intelligence. The maximum jail term under the 1989 act is two years. The rest of the 1911 act still stands, but is not relevant here.

[emad]

8. The 1989 amended act states that disclosure of signing the OSA

is an offence in itself.

The exact paragraph informing all potential signatories of secrecy is part of the main document itself which I presume you would have read before committing your name to it.

[moggie]

9. Come now, can't you quote from the Act?

[emad]

11. WON'T quote from the act because it is a criminal offence to

state the exact wording of the secrecy clause. WHICH if you really had signed you would know about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. No problem - here's the act

all you have to do it point us at the bit you're talking about. If the government publish it, I think you'll avoid being thrown in the Tower.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890006_en_1

[emad]

13. That is not the actual document with appended caution that people

have to sign but an internet document.

EG in the Royal Courts of Justice the document they give you has a resume of the act, the caution, a para you have to initial saying you have unberstood the information and then the space for your name, signature, date and relevant professional accreditation.

If you apply for a positive vetted job in the civil service, eg in the Home Office or Treasury, they give you their own customised declaration to sign along with the OSA explanatory notes.

There is sometimes the option of a verbal caution about disclosing the signing of the act, usually by a senior legal officer eg if you give evidence in a court case that is affected by OSA issue.

It is illegal to say in public that you have signed the act.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Maybe you're thinking of the Official Double Secret Act?

[moggie]

16. You're not supposed to know about that!

Unless... *gasp*... you're with the Laundry? Oh no, now I've said too much!

[moggie]

15. We're not all spooks

The OSA is part of the working lives of thousands of lowly civil servants and contractors who will never (unless someone screws up) get their hands on anything juicy. In my case it was a boring IT project with the Public Record Office (as they were then); because some of the material we were dealing with was still closed (this was before the FOIA), and because there was always the chance of a DRO releasing material they shouldn't, we had to sign. I recall no mention of double-super-secret clauses, and sadly we weren't issued with poison-tipped umbrellas.

[emad]

17. There are no double-super-secret clauses.

If you are asked to sign the act you get the official government document from whichever government department wants you to sign along with an explanatory note setting out what it means in terms of secrecy/confidentiality and/or a verbal caution/citation from a legal officer serving the papers for signature.

This states it is a criminal offence to disclose to anybody that you have signed the OSA.

Some years ago when I was interviewing the then deputy anti-terror chief Pete Clark about a Saville Enquiry update involving former Met officers I asked him directly about his authorisation to comment on some classified material referred to by the presiding judge.

His blanket refusal to budge on the issue of whether he himself had signed the OSA was backed up by a fierce tirade on the legal penalties applicable to anybody so much as asking that question let alone replying to it.

[Khartoumi]

20. OSA

I was made to sign a section of OSA back in the early '90s when I was asked to attend the preliminary interviews and vets for a job in a state agency. I am happy to report that as a known associate of Fu Manchu, I failed the "developed vetting".

[Nihil]

18. Interesting ...

> You may be thinking of section two of the 1911 act, which made it an
> offence to disclose pretty much any official information. This was
> replaced by the 1989 act

I was going to post that I recall very similar wording to Emad's comment
but your reply might have explained it ... the first time that I signed
the OSA would have been 1983 and at least one other time would have been
before 1989 ... (oops ... "hypothetically signed" of course!)

:hi:

[emad]

19. It's an offence to disclose signature. Period.

/

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. Wow really?

I signed the OSA when I worked for the UK Passport Service and I never knew... oh wait.

[LeftishBrit]

21. My head is starting to ache with all this...

Perhaps it's just as well that I never did have to sign the bloody thing. Or is it an offence to disclose that as well?