Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ex-MI6 Officer Publishes Banned Novel on Blog

Posted by Hemos on from the no-way-to-verify dept.

SpooForBrains writes "Ex-MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson has been fighting a battle with the UK Secret Services for some time now, over his plans to publish a novel detailing his experience in the service, and over claims that he published a list of MI6 agents online (a claim he denies). The latest salvo in the battle (as reported on The Register occurred on Friday when he published the first chapter of his new novel "The Golden Chain" on Blogspot. He has since put up all the remaining chapters, apparently in an attempt to have them seen before the security services have them taken down."

10 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. YRO?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell does this have to do my rights online?

    Do the editors not realize the rights of military personnel are not the same as civilians? There are some things they can and can't do even after they leave the service.

    In any case, I don't really see the relevance of this on slashdot. If you replace blog with book, I don't know how this is news for nerds.

    1. Re:YRO?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah, good ol' USA, where willful ignorance is a value to be celebrated, and a chance to learn something new is probably going to get you sent STRAIGHT to hell.

      Come on. As a nerd, don't you have some of that inquisitiveness that divides the nerds from the sheep? You've got a guy here who's decided that the public's right to know outweighs the government's desire for secrecy. Aren't you the least bit curious about the experiences this guy must have had to turn his attitude that way? For your benefit?

    2. Re:YRO?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to agree with this. Admittedly, my knowledge is US-specific, but I'm positive the basics are the same for the UK. In the US, if you wish to obtain a security clearance, you have to sign a document essentially stating that you will protect classified information for the rest of your life. In this case, the UK isn't infringing on the rights of an average citizen, the UK government is going after a man who promised to keep certain secrets, and is now going back on his promise. Legal issues notwithstanding, what Tomlinson is doing is dishonorable and wrong, as he made a promise to his country which he is not keeping in favor of personal financial gain. (i.e. selling his book for profit, or at least that was his original intention even if the plan for profit didn't work in the end.)

    3. Re:YRO?!!! by enrevanche · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That depends. If it relates to current ongoing operations, yes then he should not be writing about them. However, if it is about reasonably distant past operations, then it has no right to stop him. If a government is ashamed about what it has done, then it's time to start acting responsably. Too many things are marked state secrets because the government does not want its own citizens to know what it has done and the types of things it continues to do.

      Anyways, this is about a novel, not a work of non-fiction. So maybe it's about the types of thing that they have done even though it may not be about a specific incident.

    4. Re:YRO?!!! by headonfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you were asked to keep a secret by the government that resulted in the fleecing of millions of taxpayers, would you? how about if it was something that had resulted in one or more deaths? would you keep it secret, then? what about gross abuse of government, and thereby taxpayer, resources? would you keep it a secret then? so you signed a piece of paper. are you going to let that stop you from releasing information you feel needs to be available? What if your commanding officer or fellows were, say, abusing prisoners of a false war in extremely demeaning and inhuman ways? would you report, then?

      where do you draw the line between what the state has a right to hide and what it must not?

      in short: who's watching the watchers?

    5. Re:YRO?!!! by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The contract is with the state, and it is binding for life. It is no different from an NDA. You agree to the contract and in exchange you get access to priviledged information, that you agree not to divulge to anyone without permission.

      It's not clear whether you're talking about the US or the UK, but certainly in the UK that's not the case. The Official Secrets Act is a law, and is binding on you whether you know it or not. When you apply for security clearance you do indeed sign a bit of paper confirming your understanding of your responsibilities. However, certainly when I signed it, the sponsor was quick to point out that the Act applied whether we signed or not; not signing just meant not getting security clearance.

      He would never say anything about it, because he had signed the official secrets act and it ment something.

      If nothing else, it's a law, so it potentially means a criminal prosecution. Of course, like all laws, some people take it more seriously than others; it's good to see that your grandfather was one of the responsible ones.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  2. Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By default the government should be open. Encouraging anything less is nothing more than an evil attempt to harm and subdue a free people.

    If the government believes that any specific data may compromise the lives of any person unduly, the government can be allowed to make its case and fight for the data to remain secret.

    Some people seem to forget that this is how it was before WW2 because people were wise enough at the time, and chronologically close enough to historical examples, to know that no government can be trusted unless the people have been allowed to know what it is doing.

  3. Re:A more pertinent question... by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something tells me this guy's going to end up doing time, no matter how good his book might have been.

    Patriots serve in all sorts of less than obvious ways. Sometimes jail time for opposing the state is one of them.

    KFG

  4. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Here people are trying to paint this guy as a hero for getting information out, while at the same time we've had a multi-year snow job over a CIA "leak" that turned out to not even be a leak (but of course was claimed to be Bush's fault).

    *sigh* and *sigh* again. People are morons.

  5. Re:This is a smart move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He could very well become an unperson.

    Don't be ridiculous. He might be prosecuted, and if found guilty of violating the relevant laws he might be jailed, but any such action will take place entirely in the open.

    Britain, unlike certain a other world power, enforces its national security laws both consistently and openly (no letting people get off scot-free because they're high up in the ruling party; no "extraordinary rendition" and secret torture camps). And we do not perpetrate the barbaric practice of judicial murder ("capital punishment") even openly, let alone in secret.