17 ms·

That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/

That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower-police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investigates-claims-police-used-hackers-to-read-protesters-emails-jenny-jones https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investi...

nailer 9y ago
Original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 (or dang could change this one)
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  I personally prefer the currently linked article, it has more information.
andy_ppp 9y ago
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.
- Kenji 9y ago
  If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.
  - andy_ppp 9y ago
    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.
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      Mate, the battle may have been lost but the war never ends.
      - easytiger 9y ago
        This level of discourse is very embarrassing for HN.
        coldtea 9y ago
        I actually find this comment very embarrassing.
        justinjlynn 9y ago
        Yes, your comments are. Clearly we needed reminding and the point needed to be underscored.
        easytiger 9y ago
        Eugh. Such a shame
        orf 9y ago
        Not as embarrassing as your comment I'm afraid. I'd refrain from commenting like that in the future.
    - alexbeloi 9y ago
      The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.
- ak4g 9y ago
  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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- anqh4 9y ago
  >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.
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    Is it treason to expose abuses of power and illegal practices?
    - lithos 9y ago
      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.
      - sambe 9y ago
        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?
        anqh4 9y ago
        Are laws set in stone for eternity? No. Must acts that are committed now be judged by the laws that exist now? Yes.
        sambe 9y ago
        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.
- alex_duf 9y ago
  Well tried scotland yard, well tried...
- DanBC 9y ago
  > 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/#protection-of-official-data 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.
  - andy_ppp 9y ago
    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.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      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.
  - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ascorbic 9y ago
Yes, can the link be changed to the Guardian piece, rather than this hard-left blog.

nailer 9y ago

Original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145581 (or dang could change this one)

andy_ppp 9y ago
I personally prefer the currently linked article, it has more information.

andy_ppp 9y ago

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.

Kenji 9y ago
If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  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.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Mate, the battle may have been lost but the war never ends.
    - easytiger 9y ago
      This level of discourse is very embarrassing for HN.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        I actually find this comment very embarrassing.
      - justinjlynn 9y ago
        Yes, your comments are. Clearly we needed reminding and the point needed to be underscored.
        easytiger 9y ago
        Eugh. Such a shame
      - orf 9y ago
        Not as embarrassing as your comment I'm afraid. I'd refrain from commenting like that in the future.
  - alexbeloi 9y ago
    The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.
ak4g 9y ago
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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
anqh4 9y ago
>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.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  Is it treason to expose abuses of power and illegal practices?
  - lithos 9y ago
    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.
    - sambe 9y ago
      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?
      - anqh4 9y ago
        Are laws set in stone for eternity? No. Must acts that are committed now be judged by the laws that exist now? Yes.
        sambe 9y ago
        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.
alex_duf 9y ago
Well tried scotland yard, well tried...
DanBC 9y ago
> 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/#protection-of-official-data 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.
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  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.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    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.
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ascorbic 9y ago

Yes, can the link be changed to the Guardian piece, rather than this hard-left blog.