[HN Gopher] UK wants to reform Official Secrets law by pretendin...
___________________________________________________________________
UK wants to reform Official Secrets law by pretending journalism
doesn't exist
Author : severine
Score : 170 points
Date : 2021-07-22 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (davidallengreen.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (davidallengreen.com)
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Not from the UK, but it is a mistake to insist on press freedom.
| There should not be a difference between a journalist and any
| other civilian.
|
| Doing this will only lead to government trying to attack the
| status of journalist, which will drag people through the mud.
| Everyone is allowed to report on everything, naturally.
| Especially on government misconduct.
|
| That said, for any practical reason, just give the info that
| hasn't been authorized for release to someone outside of
| government jurisdiction and keep your head down. Problem solved,
| info is out.
| [deleted]
| testvox wrote:
| "Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to
| create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech
| which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press"
| references the printing press not the news media or journalists
| who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to
| the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment
| rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have
| less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are
| actually held to a higher standard).
| jcranmer wrote:
| > actually they could be said to have less because for
| certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to
| a higher standard
|
| The higher standard you're referring to I think is the
| "actual malice" standard, but that applies when the target of
| the defamation is a public figure, regardless of whether the
| alleged defamer is a journalist.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Sensible definition and I think it goes even further as they
| have some privileges as they cannot be forced to reveal
| sources. I think these rights should be extended to anyone
| that fits the definition in the widest sense that it includes
| all type of whistleblowing.
| testvox wrote:
| They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice
| not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch
| policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama
| administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad
| optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on
| using their broad intelligence powers to track down
| reporter's sources.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-
| administra...
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Damn, of course...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > they cannot be forced to reveal sources
|
| Is that the case? What legislation gives them that right?
| briandear wrote:
| There's no such legislation.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > actually they could be said to have less because for
| certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to
| a higher standard
|
| Only because what they publish is, by default, going to see
| more eyeballs and thus more likely for the defamed party to
| wan to seek remediation.
| unishark wrote:
| Kind of works out to special freedoms when the govt limits
| the number of people who can observe events and hands access
| credentials out based on whether they are more legitimate-
| appearing journalists.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why does the government have an approved press pool? When
| you think about it it's completely barmy. Why don't they do
| everything via press releases and let everyone access
| equally?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why don't they do everything via press releases and
| let everyone access equally?_
|
| Because that's less transparent. From an idealistic
| perspective, sure, this is fine. From a practical
| perspective, it's bonkers.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why is it more transparent to let a lot of unelected
| people who represent nobody ask questions? We already
| have elected people paid to do this job - HM's
| opposition.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| This is a good example of letting perfect be the enemy of
| the good. Because everyone can't--physically--have
| access, nobody gets it and the elected leadership gets to
| hide behind press releases.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The Opposition get it - that's what they're there for.
| And unlike the press they're elected, paid, accountable,
| and recallable.
| Retric wrote:
| It's a legacy from before radio, which sticks around
| because press briefings often allow for questions.
|
| Q&A is useful because it adds clarity, but the format
| means they can pick which reporters to favor.
| Jenk wrote:
| I think that's the point here though. Currently there is no
| extra protections offered to journalists than any other person.
| Everyone is "free".
|
| This new law infringes on that freedom. It is reported as a law
| against journalists but it is a law against anyone who wishes
| to expose government wrongdoing.
|
| They are politicising it as a fight for/against journalism,
| mostly because there is a large segement of UK society that
| have a strong disliking of journalists in general - many have
| living memory of several journalism scandals from invasion of
| privacy (e.g., "phone hacking scandal"), to dressing up as a
| "terrorist" to invade the palace (read: dress up in clothing
| worn by cultures in the middle east and, literally, blackface
| and then walk into the palace as a tourist and deliberately
| "get lost") to some general shitbaggery (e.g., The Sun blaming
| Liverpool FC supporters for the Hillsborough distaster)
|
| It is so so important to remember/realise that a "journalist"
| is _anyone_ reporting or publishing something. Even just a
| tweet that exposes some wrongdoing by the government would get
| you nabbed by this law.
| hogFeast wrote:
| It isn't a law against journalists or against everyone.
| Nothing new is being introduced, all that is happening is
| that rules against disclosure of confidential documents are
| being hardened...but these rules already exist today.
|
| Also, I am also not sure how the distinction aren't obvious:
| this is happening because a journalist, seemingly acting at
| the behest of a nation state, leaked confidential documents
| relating to national security. The UK already has laws that
| make this a criminal offence (and btw, the reason why the
| 1989 Act was passed was because someone did something very
| similar in the 80s, and tried to claim a public interest
| defence...this is not new). It is not aimed at journalists
| criticising the govt. It is not aimed at leaking generally.
| The purpose of this act is legitimate: to dissuade people
| from leaking stuff that is confidential for a reason (and
| btw, when journalists do get access to this stuff, they
| usually ask the govt what they should do anyway...obviously,
| this is changing but the situation that people are concerned
| about already exists, and hasn't led to lower levels of
| scrutiny...the irony of people who are relentlessly critical
| of the govt complaining about being silenced).
|
| This is just like the policing bill. The media are
| misreporting what the actual content is (not to a huge
| degree, but enough), the noisy minority are getting their
| views from other uninformed people on Twitter, and no-one
| actually has a clue what is going on (I have read one story
| on this that actually quotes an actor's tweets...who cares?).
| Democracy in action.
| diordiderot wrote:
| So if the government is torturing people on UK soil for
| "national security reasons" and a Russian state sponsored
| journalist leaks it, they should or shouldn't be protected
| in your world view?
| hogFeast wrote:
| Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is
| espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a
| foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something
| else.
|
| Also, your comment is exactly why people are confused.
| People read stuff like that on Twitter and think...oh,
| now MI5 is going to come round to my house, and torture
| me...why won't the journalists protect us? There are
| already legal protections against the actions of security
| services because the UK has a functioning legal system.
| That is the main protection in our society. Journalists,
| most of whom spend all day on Twitter sharing salacious
| bullshit with other journalists, are not the protection
| (that was my point, in your narrative journalists are the
| protection but, ironically, they are the main source of
| misinformation about this bill because their interests
| are threatened).
| willcipriano wrote:
| The US constitution makes indefinite detention without
| trial illegal, same for torture and warrentless
| wiretapping. There is no stronger protection possible in
| our legal system, or any legal system that I am aware of.
| It is the duty of every public official, solider and
| police officer to uphold the constitution, they all take
| oaths to that effect. However all three have happened
| rather routinely over the past two decades and that's
| just the stuff we know about.
|
| The UK would be wise to learn from our mistake.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > dissuade people from leaking stuff that is confidential
|
| So it just dissuades people from exposing the govt
| wrongdoing the govt is trying to cover up.
|
| If we're only allowed to know about the wrongdoing the
| government does publicly we wouldn't need investigative
| journalism.
| hogFeast wrote:
| It isn't dissuading people from exposing "govt
| wrongdoing". Information that is confidential is not the
| same thing as "govt wrongdoing" or non-public. No-one is
| being dissuaded because the same situation would exist
| before as after (this is something that reporting on this
| topic is eliding, this point isn't being explicitly but
| it is implied...and it is wrong).
|
| And investigative journalism does not only relate to non-
| public information either. Every journalist thinks they
| are Carl Bernstein, and you actually look at what they
| write about and is just salacious, Westminster bubble
| nonsense that no normal human cares or knows about. So we
| have the situation we have today, and there is very
| little serious scrutiny of the govt. Ooooh, a top adviser
| went to Barnard Castle? Ooooh, a SPAD who has been
| leaking me stories was fired? Get Carl Bernstein on the
| case. Utter nonsense.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > Information that is confidential is not the same thing
| as "govt wrongdoing"
|
| It can be, and that's the problem.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I disagree. In my opinion, certain illegal acts (like breaking
| into certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.)
| should be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism. I
| don't want people going around hacking random websites to prove
| a point to the sysadmins, but I also don't want journalists to
| be silenced from exposing incompetencies in critical systems.
|
| Sadly, modern journalism had veered more and more into the
| territory of activism, much more than it had fifty years ago.
| The Murdoch media machine is doing its best to accelerate this
| change of direction, as is the sensationalist new from the US.
|
| With the current course of politics worldwide, extra
| protections for citizens is not the outcome I expect from
| abolishing journalistic freedoms. Instead, journalists will be
| downgraded to the limited and sometimes even oppressive rules
| citizens have in regard to freedom of information and conduct.
|
| "Just keep your head down" is not a solution, because most
| people suck at OpSec. The government can and will find you if
| you release sensitive documents.
| akarma wrote:
| > certain illegal acts (like breaking into certain websites,
| illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should be legal if done
| for the purpose of proper journalism
|
| This isn't the case in any country and almost certainly
| should not be.
|
| In some countries, a journalist is generally free to publish
| anonymously sourced information, regardless of its source
| (which may have been a hack), and report on that information.
| Journalists are never allowed to hack websites. Hacking
| websites isn't legal.
|
| Making some level of allowed-hacker as long as they're
| labeled a journalist would be crazy, as it would (1) result
| in the aforementioned semantic debate over who is a
| journalist, (2) would be the antithesis of privacy to have
| hackers that are allowed to hack you legally.
| hogFeast wrote:
| I think one of the reasons behind this proposed change is
| keeping up with changes in what it means to be a
| journalist.
|
| In the UK, public interest has never been a defence. And
| given the increasing role that nation states are having in
| leaking stuff to journalists (even political parties,
| Labour used documents that were leaked by Russia at their
| conference in 2019 iirc...ofc, they were totally
| misleading, which was the point), it is reasonable to ask
| where the line with espionage actually is.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > In my opinion, certain illegal acts (like breaking into
| certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should
| be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism.
|
| Who gets to define what constitutes "proper" journalism? You?
| Me? The government? What you're saying is so far beyond
| absurd that I can't even really address it.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Snowden (and others like him) would get a free pass under
| this system? How would governments keep secrets if any ole
| person could just share them. I know hilarious/embarrassing
| secrets from old workplaces and the military. Should I just
| spill the beans in a blog post? That's "journalism" ...
|
| There's real human consequences in sharing secrets and the
| laws somewhat reflect that consequence. Can they be too
| harsh? yes. We should fight against that if they become too
| harsh, but I don't think they should be turned off.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > proper journalism
|
| Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper journalism.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| No, but there is a public interest defence
| Lio wrote:
| On 10th July 2011 Rupert Murdock was forced to close his
| News of the World newspaper due to overwhelming public
| disgust that they had hacked the answer phone and removed
| messages from a murdered little girl[1].
|
| Murdock originally tried to use "public interest" to
| justify that.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone
| _hacki...
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper
| journalism.
|
| I've had a thought bouncing around my pachinko machine of a
| brain about this topic.
|
| While at the single story/topic level you might be correct,
| I think there may be a pretty basic test for bias.
|
| Using sentiment analysis, (manually or ML) couldn't you
| figure out which topics or groups a news org never speaks
| ill of?
|
| The omitted criticisms could paint a pretty good picture of
| bias.
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| I honestly can't see how this would work in practice...
| It quickly falls into a "who will watch the watchers"
| kind of situation...
|
| I'm trying to picture how it would work in practice. Say
| that there are two news organizations, one wildly pro-
| Trump, one Wildly anti-Trump. It's already clear that
| they are both biased and ignoring a lot of information.
| But wouldn't one group still be closer to the truth? How
| would anyone know which one?
| consumer451 wrote:
| That's a very good point, and shows one of the limits of
| my line of thought. Though I don't think it makes it
| entirely useless.
|
| Using your example, pro-Trump vs anti-Trump... one would
| have to wait until Trump is gone as POTUS and see how
| each news org treats the new POTUS. Maybe this analysis
| would only work over long periods of time.
|
| The other aspect of all of this that you made me think
| about is that bias is not necessarily bad.
|
| I am biased towards democracy, I don't think that's a bad
| thing. Also, bias against something which is objectively
| "bad" is not a bad thing.
|
| edit: Maybe the solution here is to embrace bias, and
| state your biases openly.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I look forward to David's blog being banned by the government for
| limiting their free speech...
| [deleted]
| pydry wrote:
| >Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation
| argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because
| the work of a foreign spy "will often only be to the benefit of a
| single state or actor".
|
| tl;dr Priti Patel thinks embarrassing government leaks are worse
| for her than actual espionage and so wants to criminalize them.
| petepete wrote:
| Disgraced Home Secretary, Priti Patel*
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No she's the current Home Secretary.
|
| You could argue that she's the 'disgraced' Secretary of State
| for International Development if you wanted to.
| [deleted]
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > No she's the current Home Secretary.
|
| She can still be disgraced, though, no? Not least because
| she's been pretty disgraceful as Home Secretary.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Disgraced X means they were X but have fallen from that
| position. You can't be a disgraced X if you're still an
| X.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-22 23:02 UTC)