If documents are genuine does it matter who put them in the public domain?

[papasmurf]

Now I'm drawn in. Share?

It is a very long list.

[Good old]

No one seems to be saying the documents false.

The one's I refer to are most certainly not false.

Now I'm drawn in. Share?

[papasmurf]

No one seems to be saying the documents false.

The one's I refer to are most certainly not false.

[Good old]

Aimed at no leak of documents in particular, just in case one happens next week:-

If documents are genuine does it matter who put them in the public domain? (In other words just because you don't like the messenger it does not alter the veracity of the message.)

Over the last few years, I have seen documents a very long time before the media/press makes a fuss about them.
There usually follows a load of accusations, despite the originator of the documents, not being able to deny that they are genuine, of people with an agenda, it was the Russians, false news and so on and so on.
What puzzles me is why given how long ago some documents have become public domain, (if you know where to look,) organisations/political parties don't use such damaging material at all, or delay the use of it.

It helps the Tories ,to draw Labour, in like this . No one seems to be saying the documents false. Only they think it was hacked. If it was that's naughty , but by present day standards it could just as easy have been leaked . If what is in the document is not questioned as false , then this is the only way to soften the embarrassment of it becoming common knowledge.

[papasmurf]

I'm sure you know that one copy of every work published in the UK must be given to the British Library.

Well the Tories since 2010 appear to have forgotten that.

[johnofgwent]

I am not referring to classified security information, but things that devious underhanded matters government does not want the public to find out about.
Like dodgy deals which are NOT in the public interest.

Well, you were not exactly specific in your opening post, so you can hardly be surprised at my initial response.

OK so let's agree to put information restricted from public dissemination on grounds of "national security" to one side.

There are many reasons for information to be restricted from "public" view. 

I'm sure you know that one copy of every work published in the UK must be given to the British Library.

You might know that its existence there does not necessarily mean that you can see it.  For example, to have access to the reading room of the British Library you need to be a peer of the realm or have the approval of someone approved by the peers of the realm or other establishment figures.

There are of course many other ways to see whatever is in that library.  My published research work, along with that of every other contributor to the society's proceedings papers and published research journals is "freely" (in the sense it is not restricted from distribution) available to members of the Biochemical Society. However it is not available free of cost. The Society is a private member's institution and its proceedings are private. Access to the records of those proceedings, and to journals published recording the findings of its members who wish their findings to be known is by subscription.

As a graduate biochemist I am to this day welcome to reopen my society membership or subscribe to receive the society's publications at the reduced rate set for all such persons. But the society has no particular interest in keeping its work "under wraps", it is quite happy to take money from individuals, or organisations, who wish to have access to that knowledge. In the same vein, many academic institutions and public libraries maintain such subscriptions for the reason Andrew Carnegie set up his philanthropic fund for his public libraries.

There is also a lot of information that government and organisations seek to restrict from public gaze for reasons that are nothing to do with "national security"

When I perused the Open University Social Sciences foundation course module on propaganda many decades ago, a key point taught was that one must always ask WHAT was said TO WHOM and WHY, and to WHAT EFFECT.

I believe that in any and all cases where any information is "put in the public domain", where it can be freely accessible by any member of the public, both free of restriction from access and use, and free of cost for acquisition of the information (save possibly nominal amounts to defray actual costs of preparing and disseminating such details) one MUST make an assessment of what the information is, who was its original author, who put that information into the public domain, how they came to be in possession of it in order to do that, and most crucial of all, the most cynical and sceptical assessment **MUST** be made of the motive of the individual who acted to place such information in the public domain.

I am for example instantly reminded of the man whose seat I chose to contend upon his resignation from the commons.  Don Touhig's reputation as an honourable man was left in tatters by the revelation he had attempted to steal a copy of a report of a parliamentary select committee for his master Gordon Brown. In common with all such, the report in question would have been released to Brown a short time before it was placed in the Library of the Commons for all members to see, but Brown demanded Touhig attempt to purloin a copy ahead of that deadline in order that he would have extra time to prepare his defence against the criticism of himself therein.

For these reasons and many more, the motives of those placing such documents in the full gaze of the public must always be scrutinised with maximum harshness.

[papasmurf]

I keep a close eye on what the media puts in the public domain about those things I have worked on which clearly were no such thing when I worked ont hem.

I do this because - as you well know - prosecution under the official secrets act(s) is impossible even if you signed it if the informationi s already in thepublic domain.

I am not referring to classified security information, but things that devious underhanded matters government does not want the public to find out about.
Like dodgy deals which are NOT in the public interest.

[johnofgwent]

Aimed at no leak of documents in particular, just in case one happens next week:-

If documents are genuine does it matter who put them in the public domain? (In other words just because you don't like the messenger it does not alter the veracity of the message.)

Over the last few years, I have seen documents a very long time before the media/press makes a fuss about them.
There usually follows a load of accusations, despite the originator of the documents, not being able to deny that they are genuine, of people with an agenda, it was the Russians, false news and so on and so on.
What puzzles me is why given how long ago some documents have become public domain, (if you know where to look,) organisations/political parties don't use such damaging material at all, or delay the use of it.

I keep a close eye on what the media puts in the public domain about those things I have worked on which clearly were no such thing when I worked ont hem.

I do this because - as you well know - prosecution under the official secrets act(s) is impossible even if you signed it if the informationi s already in thepublic domain.

But the route by which information passes into the public domain DOES matter particularly if the information held any form of classification status at the time it was released.


The most heinous example I can think of is Me Edward Snowden. A significant amount of the very obviously classified information Snowden leaked was given to the argentinian boyfriend of a united kingdom shitrag "journalist" in order the aid boyfriend could smuggle it out of the UK

When the smuggled goods were found on the person of his boyfriend and the said smuggler detained by our border force on suspicion of commission of offences under the terrorism act 2000, this journalist started bleating loud and long about abuses of freedom of the press.

Fact is the boyfriend was an Argentinian national, the Argentine President was at the very moment of the arrest whingeing to the press that we were not handing back Les Malvinas and they were setting up sanctions against us on that basis.

As such, we had an alien national of a hostile foreign power caught bang to rights trying to smuggle classified military and government intelligence of use to an enemy nation bang to rights red handed.

Far from arresting him on suspicion of commisison of an act of terrorismm, we SHOULD have charged him with an act of ESPIONAGE and SHOT him for it.

[papasmurf]

Aimed at no leak of documents in particular, just in case one happens next week:-

If documents are genuine does it matter who put them in the public domain? (In other words just because you don't like the messenger it does not alter the veracity of the message.)

Over the last few years, I have seen documents a very long time before the media/press makes a fuss about them.
There usually follows a load of accusations, despite the originator of the documents, not being able to deny that they are genuine, of people with an agenda, it was the Russians, false news and so on and so on.
What puzzles me is why given how long ago some documents have become public domain, (if you know where to look,) organisations/political parties don't use such damaging material at all, or delay the use of it.