3 ms·

Not often I find my local rag referenced in HN, but I'm intrigued... where in the article does it mention UK intelligence? Martlesham is BT's R&D facility.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Well its now Adastral Park and before that BT labs. It Was/Is the equivalent of Bell Labs.
- 3chelon 8y ago
  Yeah I know the place, drive past it often (although the name change had passed me by). Was wondering where the UK intelligence link was in the original article.
pjc50 8y ago
It doesn't. I doubt it would be legal for them to mention things covered by the Official Secrets Act. Remember that GCHQ was "officially invisible" for years despite being a hugely visible building and major Coventry employer. The Martlesham Heath connection is less conspicuous but something I've had people in the know hint at.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  > I doubt it would be legal for them to mention things covered by the Official Secrets Act. Official Secrets act only applies to people who signed it. A journalist would have to be insane to sign the official secrets act as it is hilariously broad. If you don't sign it then you can print (almost) whatever you want. Even the much vaunted "D-Notices" are not mandatory, it's an informal agreement between the press and the government that occasionally the government will ask them not to print something and the press will (mostly) trust them, it seems to work fairly well, one thing I've wondered is that because the D-Notices are voluntary rather than mandatory the government can't abuse them the way they could if they where mandatory (since if they did the press would stop ignoring them).
  - berkut 8y ago
    > Official Secrets act only applies to people who signed it. No it doesn't. It's a law, not a contract. They only get you to sign to it in order to remind you of the fact you're bound by it.
    - noir_lord 8y ago
      Sorry you are wrong. They have to either sign it or be notified that they are covered under it generally by employment contract that you sign. Without either of those you are not bound by it. > It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be "notified" that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act. [1] [1] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7422 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum... Since I've never signed it nor a contract notifying me that I'm bound by it, I'm not bound by it nor would a journalist be. This is how you end up in the somewhat funny situation of a government employee not been able to confirm something because they are covered but the person asking for confirmation not been.
hackermailman 8y ago
CSIS raised the same alarm, article also cites the head of MI6 calling out Huawei 5G products https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadas-spy-chief-warns-about-state-sponsored-espionage-through/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadas-spy... 5 eyes alliance wants the monopoly on selling backdoored telecom equip is my cynical take from all the Huawei shenanigans lately like their CFO getting arrested yesterday.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Well its now Adastral Park and before that BT labs. It Was/Is the equivalent of Bell Labs.

3chelon 8y ago
Yeah I know the place, drive past it often (although the name change had passed me by). Was wondering where the UK intelligence link was in the original article.

pjc50 8y ago

It doesn't. I doubt it would be legal for them to mention things covered by the Official Secrets Act. Remember that GCHQ was "officially invisible" for years despite being a hugely visible building and major Coventry employer. The Martlesham Heath connection is less conspicuous but something I've had people in the know hint at.

noir_lord 8y ago
> I doubt it would be legal for them to mention things covered by the Official Secrets Act. Official Secrets act only applies to people who signed it. A journalist would have to be insane to sign the official secrets act as it is hilariously broad. If you don't sign it then you can print (almost) whatever you want. Even the much vaunted "D-Notices" are not mandatory, it's an informal agreement between the press and the government that occasionally the government will ask them not to print something and the press will (mostly) trust them, it seems to work fairly well, one thing I've wondered is that because the D-Notices are voluntary rather than mandatory the government can't abuse them the way they could if they where mandatory (since if they did the press would stop ignoring them).
- berkut 8y ago
  > Official Secrets act only applies to people who signed it. No it doesn't. It's a law, not a contract. They only get you to sign to it in order to remind you of the fact you're bound by it.
  - noir_lord 8y ago
    Sorry you are wrong. They have to either sign it or be notified that they are covered under it generally by employment contract that you sign. Without either of those you are not bound by it. > It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be "notified" that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act. [1] [1] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7422 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum... Since I've never signed it nor a contract notifying me that I'm bound by it, I'm not bound by it nor would a journalist be. This is how you end up in the somewhat funny situation of a government employee not been able to confirm something because they are covered but the person asking for confirmation not been.

hackermailman 8y ago

CSIS raised the same alarm, article also cites the head of MI6 calling out Huawei 5G products https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadas-spy-chief-warns-about-state-sponsored-espionage-through/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadas-spy... 5 eyes alliance wants the monopoly on selling backdoored telecom equip is my cynical take from all the Huawei shenanigans lately like their CFO getting arrested yesterday.