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."

6 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: 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.)

    2. 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?

  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. 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.