±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 33155
New Yesterday: 2 Visitors: 166

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

RSS Feed Widget

±Latest Webinars

Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page Previous  1, 2 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm

- benfindlay


I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I have to ask if this is definitely the case? In usual situations, these cases have been through court, meaning their particulars are now a matter of public record surely?

In this particular case however, these matters have not been through that same process to my knowledge/understanding, so wouldn't that change things?



From Official Secrets Act

4 Crime and special investigation powers.

(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article to which this section applies and which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.

(2)This section applies to any information, document or other article—
(a)the disclosure of which—
(i)results in the commission of an offence; or
(ii)facilitates an escape from legal custody or the doing of any other act prejudicial to the safekeeping of persons in legal custody; or
(iii)impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders; or
(b)which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.

As the information provided would not fall into anything in category a, there would be no offence.  

minime2k9
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:36 pm

- minime2k9
From Official Secrets Act

4 Crime and special investigation powers.

(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article to which this section applies and which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.

(2)This section applies to any information, document or other article—
(a)the disclosure of which—
(i)results in the commission of an offence; or
(ii)facilitates an escape from legal custody or the doing of any other act prejudicial to the safekeeping of persons in legal custody; or
(iii)impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders; or
(b)which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.

As the information provided would not fall into anything in category a, there would be no offence.


Interesting, thanks for the information. So no offence under that section, but is section 4 the only section that a police officer is bound by? I ask as, looking at some of the other sections, it seems to imply (or at least my reading is) that you can be notified as being subject to other sections. I'm curious as to which sections are listed on the paper you sign when you start/leave employment with a police force (I certainly can't remember any specifics myself).

Also, given at least one of the officers in question (who have disclosed information) are reported as having worked in counter-terrorism, then wouldn't it be likely that they would be subject to other sections, e.g. Security & Intelligence and/or Defence?

Ben
_________________
Ben Findlay. BSc (Hons) MSc MBCS MCSFS MIScT
Course Leader Computer and Digital Forensics
Senior Lecturer Crime Intelligence & Data Analytics
School of Science, Engineering and Design
Teesside University 

benfindlay
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:53 pm

- benfindlay

Interesting, thanks for the information. So no offence under that section, but is section 4 the only section that a police officer is bound by? I ask as, looking at some of the other sections, it seems to imply (or at least my reading is) that you can be notified as being subject to other sections.


- benfindlay

Also, given at least one of the officers in question (who have disclosed information) are reported as having worked in counter-terrorism, then wouldn't it be likely that they would be subject to other sections, e.g. Security & Intelligence and/or Defence?
Ben


The first 4 sections deal with what are unauthorized disclosures. They have similar functions in that they require the information disclosed to be of potential use to attacker/criminal/foreign government etc.

The wording is the disclosure has to be "damaging", as described below:

For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage or which falls within a class or description of information, documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to have that effect.

- benfindlay

I'm curious as to which sections are listed on the paper you sign when you start/leave employment with a police force (I certainly can't remember any specifics myself).


Oddly, this is law so everyone is actually bound by it it but it only applies to certain people. The "signing" is really a reminder of your duties under the act. I think I've "signed" on about 10 times.  

minime2k9
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 am

- minime2k9
The wording is the disclosure has to be "damaging", as described below:

For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage or which falls within a class or description of information, documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to have that effect.


How delightfully broad! Would I therefore be right in thinking that "any part of" would seemingly include things like reputational damage? I also wonder how broad/vague the definition of "damage" might be interpreted as being.

Co-incidentally, I just tried to access the Parliamentary page on the Official Secrets Act (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7422) and am receiving a "Server Error". Someone pass me my tin foil hat. Wink

It's also interesting to see what the media have reported regarding Cressida Dick's comments on the matter of prosecutions of the officers involved. Time will tell, I suppose!
_________________
Ben Findlay. BSc (Hons) MSc MBCS MCSFS MIScT
Course Leader Computer and Digital Forensics
Senior Lecturer Crime Intelligence & Data Analytics
School of Science, Engineering and Design
Teesside University 

benfindlay
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:44 am

I'm not quite sure what they would prosecute them under.
If he were serving a police officer then I could imagine there would be things that they could charge them with.
As a retired officer, I'm not sure what legislation they would use  

minime2k9
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:59 am

"and which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such."

Surely this means that the information leaked has to be true? How can you be in possession of material that did not exist?

So any charges brought under this act would clearly imply that the leak was actually correct in its claim?

Also, it should be noted that Green has been very specific in discussing what he did rather than make specific claims re the actual PC. Thus leaving available the "shared password defence" IF it is established that this material was on the PC..

Ironically, the initial raid was concerning leaks from his office so the possibility that passwords were shared (if thats true) within his office is of direct concern?


All interesting stuff.  

pbeardmore
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Damian Green and the forensic/ethical maze

Post Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:44 am

- pbeardmore

What should surely we all agree on is how to deal with notes taken when reviewing cases once a member of the team retires?


Ha! No one takes notes during case work.  

keydet89
Senior Member
 
 

Page 2 of 2
Go to page Previous  1, 2