Talk:Official Secrets Act 1989

Added more info, issues

I added details of most of the sections of the 1989 act, as I think it's enlightening about what is, and what isn't, illegal. There's a few things I'm not clear on:

• I'm surprised by section 15. If I read that correctly, it's legal for a crown servant to travel to a foreign country and disclose secret info about ongoing criminal investigations, or leave a document with such info lying around. I understand the omission of section 5 for those abroad, but not 4 and 8.
• [Deleted as resolved]
• It reads as if section 6, like section 5, applies to everyone. Am I correct in this belief?
• What's the prevailing legislation regarding espionage? Clearly the 2 year term carried by the act (even for sections 1 and 2) is much lower than a spy would get.

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Major reorganization, edits

This concerns my recent edits and their reversions. I think they are reasonable and the reverts should themselves be reverted.

The first (revert) concerns my (not really major, but I will accede that this may be viewed as such) reorganization. Before my edits, an overview/interpretation/analysis of each and every section of the act was and is given a top-level section each. This organization is not conventional (and hence against consensus), and non-optimal for a number of reasons. First, all of them are largely related, all being overview/interpretation/analysis, and hence should be organized under the same section. Second, being so copious and unorganized, it makes the article difficult to read, especially in light of its extremely complex and country-specific material. Third, it has the effect of giving undue weight to the overview/interpretation/analysis. Fourth, not only is this article mainly occupied by this copious overview/interpretation/analysis information, but it is overview/interpretation/analysis that is uncited and appears to be original research; for this argument I will accede that it may stay. I argue that appearance, vain as though it may be, is a valid reason for purely organizational edits that do not remove or add information per se. Given all these factors, together or separately, I find it reasonable that at least they should be organized under the same top-level heading, which in my experience consensus has given the heading title of "overview" or "analysis", and in some cases "interpretation".

"Not conventional": try looking at Halsbury's Statutes or the legislation.gov.uk website or etc and you will find out what is conventional.

There is some original research in the article, but it is certainly not the whole. And the way to deal with it is to check the sources that are cited and look for new ones, not muck about with the headings.James500 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Conventional in terms of Wikipedia consensus. We can no doubt find examples of almost any organizational structure, but this alone does not contradict most of what I have said, mainly that my edits reflect how other articles are organized. Wikipedia is not Halsbury's Statutes, and may not be organized the same, and this is OK. Again, even if I were to concede it is not OR, how do either of these refute that having all the overview/interpretation/analysis sections under a top-level section is a better solution? Int21h (talk)

And I think it should be mentioned Wikipedia is not modeled after Halsbury's Statutes or its contemporaries but Encyclopedia Britannica and its contemporaries. They have a very different organizational structure and philosophy it would appear. Int21h (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Halsbury's Statutes would be a more appropriate model for an article like this. Change the model. James500 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The second (revert) concerns overly useless overview/interpretation/analysis. It is so useless that it does not really warrant its presence, much less its own top-level section. Int21h (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice thinks that section 16 is sufficiently important to justify reprinting parts of it verbatim and to summarise the rest. The National Archives website and Halsbury's Statutes think that it is sufficiently important to justify reprinting it verbatim with annotations. I could go on and name others. There is substantial coverage. It is WP:Notable. Simple as that.

Perceived lack of utility is not a reason to delete anything. There is a consensus against doing that. But in any event, the suggestion that it is not useful to know what section 16 does is nonsense.James500 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is philosophical and much debated. But I believe usless information may be deleted. If it is not useless, then so be it. But if it is useless, it may (not must) be deleted. Especially if it is part of a major cleanup that contributes to readability and understanding (by laymen). Int21h (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written exclusively for the benefit of laymen. The fact that a substantial proportion of the public is too thick or uneducated to understand something is emphatically not a good reason to delete it.James500 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be substantially expanded, but the way that is proposed to go about it is completely wrong.James500 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't see the most damaging problem as the lack of information, but the way in which it is organized. It seems haphazard, and not cohesive. I should be able to look at the intro and get a brief summary of all information below it, which is both broad and deep in its coverage. As it stands, the intro does not summarize, nor is the overview/interpretation/analysis of each section summarized, which would seem to me the first step before the entire article can be summarized. All this makes for some very dreadful reading, which even I have a hard time getting through. More material will likely make readability even more difficult. In a word, I disagree. Int21h (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Readability - This is not the simple english wikipedia.James500 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I predict you will find your method only possible in theory, not so much in practice, which I believe is why it is not done already. As it stands, you will have to summarize each section individually in the intro itself, probably with two sentences each, that will together somehow summarize the entire article. Obviously, this means the summary will almost be as large as the rest of the article. You will likely also find, given that out of the 13 sections, 10 will be about the individual sections, and not easily allow for a broad summary. It will necessitate a section by section summary in the intro itself. As each of these sections grow, this will become increasingly difficult.

The organizational method I describe has been reached by consensus for a reason. The article you have created is small and difficult to read. As it grows, it will become even more difficult to read, and I predict your efforts at summarizing the article effectively will be hampered by this ineffective organizational model. It will also prevent others from understanding the article effectively, and expanding on it. In effect, I find it will be very effective at preventing understanding and involvement by others.

Since we cannot come to some sort of understanding or compromise, I will taking this to some noticeboard for more eyes and more opinions. Again, I believe this article important enough to warrant such a move. I believe putting the section-by-section analysis under one top-level heading is the most effective, as seen by similar articles, way of organizing the article for the many reasons I have stated and more. Int21h (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The article you created": I am not the primary author of a substantial proportion of the material in this article, which was moved here from the page Official Secrets Act, and which I am in the process of replacing.
• Those parts of the article which I have written are not difficult to read. If you find them difficult to read, you must have difficulty reading period.
• What this Act does is not simple, and the public should not be told that it is, because that would be misleading. I am not in favour of any attempt to "dumb-down" this article. I am concerned that that is what is being proposed.
• Which noticeboard are you planning to take this to? Some input from WikiProject Law might be desirable.

James500 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The organizational edit you reverted does not dumb down the article, it improves it. WikiProject Law seems like a good start, but since this argument is not over law or the substance of the article probably a board or project specializing in aesthetic concerns, or just a catch-all notice board. (Or all of them.) Int21h (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea that I think will satisfy you.James500 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. James500 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cut

I have cut the following passage from the introduction to the article.

In order for a crime to be committed, the following conditions must apply:

1. the disclosure must not be by means permitted in section 7;
2. the person making the disclosure must know, or should know, that their disclosure is unauthorised;
3. the disclosure must cause harm to the UK or its interests, or it could reasonably be believed that harm could occur; and
4. the person making the disclosure must know, or should know, that such harm could occur.

The entire passage looks like it is an original synthesis.

Para 1: Section 7 specifies circumstances rather than "means".

Para 2: This refers to section 7(4) and is somewhat confusing as para 1 refers to section 7 in terms which do not clearly exclude that subsection.

Paras 3 and 4: Sections 1(1) and 4(3) and 5(6) contain no express requirement that harm should occur or be likely to occur. The sections of the Act that do require proof of harm are more specific than "harm to the UK or its interests".

I have decided that the best approach is to start again from scratch.James500 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Contact with ETI may relate to OSA

Hi, it seems that in the (very unlikely) event of a "First Contact" situation ie ETIs either making their existence known through public easily decodable radio signals or other more direct means, it may emerge that the UK or US Government have earlier evidence of this which was once classified. If so then those involved *may* be permitted to discuss this despite technically still being bound by the OSA, but only under close supervision from their CO or in the form of a generic statement. This could also involve other Governments and recent events suggest a link to Rendlesham Forest and other incidents involving possible encounters with non terrestrial vehicles by military or other personnel including some amateur radio enthusiasts within the UK military and by extension some physicists. As my clearance level is limited I am not sure precisely how much information is kept by Four Letter Agencies and the MOD under invention secrecy laws but it seems substantial and potentially worth a Nobel if made public one day.

The Freedom of Information laws in the UK seem to be too restrictive in this regard, as many files were never included in "Project Blue Book" releases or for that matter "Project Greenglow" which is known to have tested some aspects of Woodward, Podkletnov and Shawyer's work though official statements suggest that results were inconclusive or negative. In fact the recent release of files regarding to the above suggests that there are a small percentage of UAP events that defy explanation and ball lightning though now an accepted part of the scientific literature is currently not fully understood. Many scientists now feel that there are reports not made public which should be at the right time, as they may help further analyze the phenomenon.

MI5 dirty tricks campaign

"Former Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees admits MI5 did wage a dirty tricks campaign against the last Labour government. New allegations of security service involvement in a plan to undermine the Wilson government are disclosed in a book out today, Who Framed Colin Wallace, by Paul Foot. It had to be rushed into print to avoid the new Official Secrets Act, which gets royal assent tomorrow."

• "Merlyn Rees on MI5 dirty tricks campaign". bufvc.ac.uk. British Universities Film & Video Council. 10 May 1989. Retrieved 26 April 2023.

<ref name="bufvc/0004900412007">{{cite web |title=Merlyn Rees on MI5 dirty tricks campaign |url=http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0004900412007 |access-date=26 April 2023 |date=10 May 1989 |website=bufvc.ac.uk |publisher=[[British Universities Film & Video Council]]}}</ref>

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)