Apart from people like Edward Snowden of course. They signed no such agreements obviously. However, to demonstrate the breadth of your naiveté in your little

Apart from people like Edward Snowden of course. They signed no such agreements obviously. However, to demonstrate the breadth of your naiveté in your little witch hunt - here is the first line of that document you linked to. ensure they are appropriately protected; support Public Sector business and the effective exploitation of information; and meet the requirements of relevant legislation and international / bilateral agreements and obligations. It applies to all information that government collects, stores, processes, generates or shares to deliver services and conduct business, including information received from or exchanged with external partners. This is nothing to do with the Official Secrets Act. We disseminate these documents freely and at industry conferences to ensure List X companies are in compliance and also because the Intelligence Services have a vested interest in ensuring our economic and commercial IT infrastructure is robust. So struck out on the Official Secrets Act claim. Let us see how you do in reviewing policy... You will find on Page 15 the extant legislation that I referred to in my original post above. So far so credible. It is almost like the intelligence operators were obeying that law or something... ...oh wait, the very next page. This document should be read in conjunction with the detailed standards and guidance set out in the HMG Security Policy Framework (SPF). Pretty sure I said that in my original post. And then the gem of gems - Page 18. Destroy / sanitise to prevent retrieval and reconstitution followed by Guidance about the management and handling of security incidents is available in the SPF documents 'Security Breach Management' and 'Leaks Procedural Guidance' Relevant ICO guidance should also be consulted. You are 0 for 2 there. Thanks for playing though. That's what happens when you attempt to position yourself as someone qualified to question a process you have neither been trained or educated in. You will also find above this comment 4 other HN posters who confirm that US and Australian security procedures are the same and another poster confirming that the procedures are the same for civilian IT engineers working in commercially sensitive environments. Are we all lying?