5 ms·

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste

by ikeboy 11y ago

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... The first section referenced in OP says: >A relevant telecommunications provider who has been required under this Part to provide assistance in giving effect to a targeted equipment interference warrant, and any person employed for the purposes of the business of the relevant telecommunications provider, may not, without reasonable excuse, disclose to any person— (a) the existence and contents of the warrant >(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is, in particular, a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person who imposed the requirement. So the fact that the FBI made it public is a reasonable excuse to talk about it. The second section says: >A person to whom a relevant notice is given, or any person employed or engaged for the purposes of that person’s business, must not disclose the existence and contents of the notice to any other person. We have >In this section “relevant notice” means— (a) a national security notice under section 188, or (b) a technical capability notice under section 189 while > But a national security notice may not require the taking of any steps the main purpose of which is to do something for which a warrant or authorisation is required under this Act. So the first category couldn't have included this, which required a warrant. The second category seems like it could apply (although there's some ambiguity over whether it applies to entities outside the UK which I haven't dug through), but it's for general "maintain ability to comply". >The only steps that may be specified in a technical capability notice given to a person are steps which the Secretary of State considers to be necessary for securing that the person has the practical capability of providing any assistance which the person may be required to provide in relation to any relevant authorisation So a specific warrant would not fall under that. I don't see how any section that the OP refers to would apply.

madaxe_again 11y ago
You're assuming that "reasonable excuse" means what you and I might think it means - "reasonable" has a very specific meaning in UK tort law, and it doesn't mean reasonable - it means whatever a judge decides to be reasonable when put to several specific tests - so in practice that specifically means little.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  It explicitly includes if the disclosure is made with permission of the person who issued it. I think if that's included, it stands to reason that the order being public would count as well. (They're obviously fine with it being disclosed, implicit permission.) Do you have a link to the specific tests?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    I pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the BT Tower was deemed an Official Secret for years and did not appear on maps, despite being a 177m building in Central London, standing out like a sore thumb in the middle of an area where the only other highrise, a km away, was 60m shorter. There were public tours and a restaurant for the first 15 years. Yet disclosing its location would still have caused you to run foul of the Official Secrets Act for years. The UK government and courts has very little sense of humour about these things and you most certainly can not in general assume that making information public even in the most blatant manner will mean that they won't still insist that the information is still legally restricted as if it is still a secret.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      That would be a problem with the OSA, not with the act in OP. That specifically says "reasonable excuse" which would seem to include this case.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        I gave the example to point out that the government itself have historically often very explicitly not "obviously [been] fine with it being disclosed" even when they themselves have made the information in question easily accessible, such as by plopping down a 177m tower in the middle of London and inviting people to tour it. It remains to be seen if "reasonable excuse" as interpreted under UK law will be interpreted the way you assume it should, but assuming that making information public in one context means it should no longer be treated as secret has often been a bad bet in the UK, even when it gets totally ridiculous.

by ikeboy 11y ago

madaxe_again 11y ago

You're assuming that "reasonable excuse" means what you and I might think it means - "reasonable" has a very specific meaning in UK tort law, and it doesn't mean reasonable - it means whatever a judge decides to be reasonable when put to several specific tests - so in practice that specifically means little.

ikeboy 11y ago
It explicitly includes if the disclosure is made with permission of the person who issued it. I think if that's included, it stands to reason that the order being public would count as well. (They're obviously fine with it being disclosed, implicit permission.) Do you have a link to the specific tests?
- vidarh 11y ago
  I pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the BT Tower was deemed an Official Secret for years and did not appear on maps, despite being a 177m building in Central London, standing out like a sore thumb in the middle of an area where the only other highrise, a km away, was 60m shorter. There were public tours and a restaurant for the first 15 years. Yet disclosing its location would still have caused you to run foul of the Official Secrets Act for years. The UK government and courts has very little sense of humour about these things and you most certainly can not in general assume that making information public even in the most blatant manner will mean that they won't still insist that the information is still legally restricted as if it is still a secret.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    That would be a problem with the OSA, not with the act in OP. That specifically says "reasonable excuse" which would seem to include this case.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      I gave the example to point out that the government itself have historically often very explicitly not "obviously [been] fine with it being disclosed" even when they themselves have made the information in question easily accessible, such as by plopping down a 177m tower in the middle of London and inviting people to tour it. It remains to be seen if "reasonable excuse" as interpreted under UK law will be interpreted the way you assume it should, but assuming that making information public in one context means it should no longer be treated as secret has often been a bad bet in the UK, even when it gets totally ridiculous.