[WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy

[John C. Penta]

----- Original Message -----
From: Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2004 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy

> So (i) It applies to employees of the government 
>   (ii) Its about prevent the dissemination of classified 
> information 

Oh, something I forgot. Gareth is, I think, not entirely correct.

If I remember correctly, such provisions also apply to contractors and such. It's not explicitly said, but that's basically how the courts (on both sides of the Atlantic) have generally interpreted such laws.

The rule of thumb is: It applies if you do "government work", whether you're employed directly by them or not. The operative factor is: Does your work possibly give you access to classified information, on purpose or not? If the answer is yes, government secrets laws apply.

Are people prosecuted under them very often? No. They have been, though, and can easily be in the future; The working reality, however, is that most cases can be dealt with administratively, and don't require going through a criminal proceeding. They save the handcuffs for actual spies, or people who flaunt their violations. 

One reason why I disagree with the British decision not to prosecute [[Katherine Gun]], actually. The recipient of classified information can't know all of the factors involved in classifying the information, or all of the possible effects, and thus has no right to decide to release such information. There can't be exceptions or allowances for mercy when someone breaks the trust involved with classified information. You know what you're getting into when you work with it, and you don't *have* to do the job; If you're going to do such work, it should be crystal clear that you don't get to decide whether "the people have a right to know". They don't, not unless they're cleared for it, and the default assumption is that they aren't.

But, ah, I'm venting.

John