From: "George Sherwood" 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:41:23 +0100, Adam wrote:

> George Sherwood wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 06:53:10 +0100, Adam wrote:
>>
>>> George Sherwood wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:53:18 +0100, Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Comer wrote:
>>>>>> Why am I not surprised...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Iron Rice bowl. PRC is the thought leader. Get used to it.
>>>>>
>>>> They don't use wiretaps in the UK to catch criminals?
>>>>
>>>> George
>>> Not often wrt journos coz journos have the power to make probs for the
>>> pols & the pols have the power to make probs for civil servants.
>>>
>> What?  How about the "Official State Secrets Act"?  I
have seen many
>> journos threatened under that.  It is actually much stricter then what
>> we have here.
>>
>> George
>
> Yup. But it depends wrt a leak.

Seems pretty clear to me.  Seems the Washington Post, New York Times and
USA Today could be charged under Section 5 of the 1989 Official Secrets Act
for publishing leaked classified information.


>
> I suggest you try & download the Yes minister where hacker decides to
> investigate a leak.
Not heard of this.


>
> Governments work off leaks. They are an essential lubricant in the
> democratic process.

It shouldn't be off of classified info leaks.  Those that leak and those
that print it should be in jail.  This isn't whistleblowing as far as I am
concerned.

Political leaks are a totally different story and you are probably right about that.

George

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5