Off tomorrow to speak at the Mediafabric conference in Prague.
Should be a good one - all about the media, journalists, technologists, designers, hackers, and all points in between!
The conference has been organised by Sourcefabric, and there will be live streaming here.
I had a fantastic time at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Kiev last weekend. A huge well done to the organisers for a great four days, and I loved having the chance to meet so many interesting and interested people from across the world!
I was invited to give the opening keynote speech (video to follow), where I discussed some of my experiences from the MI5 whistleblowing years, but then went on to apply the harsh lessons learned to the current situation vis a vis the issue of spy influence on the media today and the thorny issue of whistleblowing and the protection of sources.
Part of my talk focused on the control of the media by the spies in Britain. As I have written before, this is very much a "carrot and stick" scenario: the soft aspect, of course, being cosy chats with selected journalists, well-timed career-enhancing scoops, as well as an increasingly unhealthy journalistic dependence on briefings coming out of the intelligence world and government.
The stick aspect includes the battery of harsh laws that can be called upon to suppress free reporting in the UK, which sometimes leads to self-censorship by the media. These laws include:
How do I know all this? Well, as you can see from many of the links in the above list, I've lived through much of this and have followed with great interest similar and related cases over the years. More information about these issues can be found in this excellent report produced by Article 19 and Liberty over a decade ago. The situation has not improved.
While in Kiev I attended an excellent session where two Russian journalists discussed the ramifications of reporting on the modern incarnation of the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB.
I was somewhat startled to hear that even in Russia journalists have more legal protection than those in the UK - ie they face no criminal legal sanction if they report whistleblower material from the Russian spy agencies. In the UK journalists potentially face 2 years in prison for doing so, under the invidious Section 5 of the 1989 OSA.
Way to go, British democracy.
Off to do a keynote at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Kiev. Should be interesting - watch this space.
I have been watching with a certain cynical interest the unfolding of Operation Weeting, one of the plethora of Metropolitan Police investigations into the UK phone hacking scandal, involving many of our favourite players: shady private investigators, predatory journalists, bent coppers, and politicians contorting themselves in an effort to protect both their own reputations and their Friends in High Places. And the ripples are spreading internationally. Nothing like a little bit of globilisation....
The Guardian newspaper has made most of the early running in exposing the corrupt practices of the now defunct News of the Screws, highlighting all the dubious tabloid practices of hacking, blagging, pinging, and god knows what else. All this done with the help of bottom-feeding private investigators, but also manifestly with the help of corrupt police officers who were not averse to the idea of taking a bribe to help their friends in Wapping. And how far might this "trickle down corruption" might have gone, um, up?
Despite the self-righteousness of other UK newspapers, it has also now become apparent that these dubious and potentially illegal practices were common throughout Fleet Street, and other national newspapers are also under investigation.
And yet it appears that all this could have been nipped in the bud over a decade ago, when Steven Nott, a concerned British citizen, tried to expose the vulnerability of mobile phones after he stumbled across the practice by accident. He took his findings to a variety of national newspapers, all of whom seem to have initially thought there was a good story, but every time the news was buried. Well, I suppose it would be, wouldn't it - after all, why would hacks expose a practice that could be so useful?
But back to the dear old OSA and the media.
In yesterday's Observer newspaper, it was reported that the police have threatened the journalists at The Guardian with the Official Secrets Act (1989) to force them to disclose the identity of their source amongst the police officer(s) in Operation Weeting who leaked useful information to the newspaper to help its exposure of illegal practices. And, rightly, the great and the good are up in arms about this draconian use of a particularly invidious law:
"John Cooper, a leading human rights lawyer and visiting professor at Cardiff University, echoed Evans's concerns. "In my view this is a misuse of the 1989 act," Cooper said. "Fundamentally the act was designed to prevent espionage. In extreme cases it can be used to prevent police officers tipping off criminals about police investigations or from selling their stories. In this instance none of this is suggested, and many believe what was done was in the public interest.
"Cooper added: "The police action is very likely to conflict with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech."
But I think he's missing a bit of recent legal history here. The UK had the 1911 OSA which was supposed to protect the country from espionage and traitors, who faced 14 years in prison upon conviction. Needless to say this provision was rarely used - most of the cold war Soviet moles in the establishment were allowed to slink off to the USSR, or at the very most be stripped of their "K".
However, as I've written before, the revised 1989 OSA was much more useful for the establishment. It was specifically put in place to stop whistleblowing after the embarrassment of the 1980s Clive Ponting/Belgrano case.
The new act was specifically designed to strip away the "public interest" defence used by Ponting in his trial, and also to penalise journalists who had the temerity to report leaks and whistleblowing from the heart of the establishment. The OSA (1989) has been used extensively since the late 1990s, despite the fact that many senior figures in the former Labour government opposed its provisions when it went through Parliament. Journalists are just as liable as whistleblowers or "leakers" under the provisions of this act (the infamous Section 5).
So, back to The Guardian and its legal champions. I agree with what they are saying: yes, the 1989 OSA has a chilling effect on freedom of speech that unduly victimises both the whistleblower and the journalist; yes, it is a uniquely draconian law for a notional Western democracy to have on its books; yes, there should be a defence of "acting in the public interest"; and yes, the OSA should be deemed to be incompatible with Section 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, guaranteeing free speech, which can only be circumscribed in the interests of "national security", itself a legally undefined, nebulous, and controversial phrase under British law.
But if all the outraged lawyers read up on their case law, particularly the hearings and legal dogfights in the run up to Regina v Shayler cases, they will see that all these issues have been addressed, apparently to the satisfaction of the honourable m'luds who preside over British courts, and certainly to the establishment figures who like to use the OSA as their "get out of jail free" card.
So I wish The Guardian journalists well in this confrontation. But I have to say, perhaps they would not have found themselves in this situation today vis a vis the OSA if, rather than just a few brave journalists, the media institutions themselves had put up a more robust fight against its provisions during its bastard birth in 1989 and its subsequent abuse.
It has been reported today that the police may have downgraded their investigation to a purely criminal matter, not the OSA. Whatever happens does not obviate the need for the media to launch a concerted campaign to call for reform of the invidious OSA. Just because one of their own is no longer threatened does not mean the chilling threat of this law has gone away. As Martin Luther King said while imprisoned in 1963:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I would also suggest the new generation working in the British media urgently read this excellent booklet produced by John Wadham of Liberty and Article 19 way back in 2000 Download Article_19_Liberty_on_OSA_2000, to remind themselves of fundamental arguments against draconian legislation such as the OSA and in favour of the freedom of the press.
Ex-Dr Steven Lomax was last month summarily struck off from the UK register of doctors by the General Medical Council in London.
In this exceptional hearing, the GMC ruled that the former senior psychiatrist, who used to work as the Director of the Castel Hospital in Guernsey:
How do I know all this? The victim of this egregious abuse, Michele Mauger, is my mother.
The GMC made an exception to hear this case in the light of the severity of the abuse and the overwhelming prima facie evidence of Lomax's guilt. Cases older than 5 years are usually not investigated. Michele's abuse began over 23 years ago.
In a resounding condemnation, the GMC stated that he had "blatantly transgressed" the boundaries governing the doctor/patient relationship and that he had caused "irreparable damage both to the patient and her family".
There has been some coverage in the media. Perhaps the most accurate reflection of what happened can be found in the Guernsey Press: Download Guernsey_Press_front_page, Download Guernsey_Press_Interview.
The governing body of the Guernsey hospitals, the Board of Health, would also appear to have some serious questions to answer.
Michele recently did an excellent interview on BBC Radio4: Woman's Hour, that encapsulated the core issues around this type of professional abuse. The interview is at the beginning of the show - listen here.
Many will be aware of the controversy surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the world-renowned weapons inspector who was said to have blown the whistle about the "sexing-up" of the intelligence case that took our countries into the 2003 Iraq War.
Ignoring all standard British legal requirements, there has never been an inquest into Dr Kelly's sudden death in 2003. Subsequent government enquiries have tried to assert over the years that he committed suicide. However, a group of senior British doctors has consistently challenged these findings and stated that his death was not proved to be suicide beyond all reasonable doubt.
The current senior legal advisor to the UK Coalition government, Attorney General Dominic Grieve, promised before last year's election that he would consider a formal inquest into Dr Kelly's death. However, since coming to power Grieve has retreated from that. In addition, all the evidence surrounding the death of Dr Kelly will, exceptionally, remain classified for 70 years.
The British doctors, led by Dr David Halpin, have one last chance to get to the truth. This week, they are applying for a Judicial Review of Grieve's decision.
The legal papers need to be filed by 8th September, and the costs of this case will be at least £50,000, much of which has already been contributed by the doctors and supporters. They are asking for donations to cover the remainder. Please help if you can, spread the word to all your contacts, and ask them to make a financial pledge at this site.
My next talk in the UK will be a keynote at the renowned CIJ summer school on 16th July. One of the major themes this year is whistleblowing, for obvious Wikileaks-related reasons, and it appears I shall be in good company.
My talk is at 2pm on the Saturday. I understand the keynotes are open to the public, not just summer school attendees, so come along if you can and please spread the word!
What a difference a mere month makes in the UK media. At the end of March The Independent newspaper produced this article in the wake of the huge TUC anti-cuts protest in London, where the British Home Secretary was castigated for considering greater police powers to prevent such "trouble" again, with particular reference to the forthcoming royal wedding.
At the time former assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, Andy Hayman, who had served as the head of the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism squad and was, umm, reportedly a much-esteemed officer before his early resignation, adopted a muscular tone by calling for "snatch squads" and "dawn raids" to be carried out by police against suspected troublemakers. How terribly un-British.
Perhaps I'm starting at shadows, but with the above in mind two interesting aricles appeared in that very same newspaper today.
The first article that caught my eye confirmed there was indeed just such a security crackdown against suspected dissidents in the UK on the eve of the royal wedding. Lynne Owens, the Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner in charge of the royal policing operation, is quoted as saying:
""We have to be absolutely clear. If anyone comes to London intending to commit criminal acts, we will act quickly, robustly and decisively." She said the Met was working with forces across the country and would use "spotters" to identify those causing trouble."
The article goes on to say:
"As police teams step up their process of "pre-event investigation" and "intelligence gathering", reports have come in from protesters that plain-clothed police are turning up at their homes to warn them against attending Friday's event."
It seems that the poor old Met is having conniptions about potentially embarrassing protesters sullying the pageantry of the royal wedding and is putting our money where its mouth is. Last week The Telegraph also reported that counter-intelligence operations were being conducted against "anarchists" to prevent trouble on 29th April.
Interesting use of language, but I suppose that one newspaper's "protester" will always be another's "anarchist"....
So what of the second article that concerned me? This described the brutal security crackdown in Syria, where the secret police were pre-emptively hunting down and arresting suspected dissidents:
"Syria's feared secret police raided hundreds of homes yesterday as authorities stepped up attempts to crush the pro-reform movement....."
UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague is quoted as saying that:
"Syria is now at a fork in the road... it can choose ever-more violent repression which can only ever bring short-term security for the authorities there."
How much more need I say? Putting aside the fact that Hague seems to have acquired his very own fork(ed tongue), the only discernable difference at this stage is in the sheer scale of the brutality and repression, not the mind-set or intent.
It's a slippery slope.....
What a difference a year makes in the mayfly minds of the old media.
In February 2010 The Guardian's resident spook watcher, Richard Norton-Taylor, reported that the serving head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, had been forced in 2008 to confess to the credulous and compliant Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament that the spies had lied, yet again, about their complicity in torture.
This confession came shortly after the ISC had released its "authoritative" report about rendition and torture, asserting that there had been no such complicity. How did the ISC get this so utterly wrong?
It turns out that in 2006 Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, Evans's predecessor in the MI5 hot-seat, had misled the ISC about MI5's awareness of the use of torture against terrorist suspects, particularly the hapless Binyam Mohamed, whose case was wending its way through the British courts. Bullying-Manner (as she is known in the corridors of power) appears to have been covering up for her predecessor, Sir Stephen Lander, who was quoted in The Telegraph in March 2001 as saying "I blanche at some of the things I declined to tell the committee [ISC] early on".....
But Evans had to come clean to the ISC because of the Mohamed court case, and Norton-Taylor wrote, by the Grauny's standards, his fairly hard-hitting article last year.
Yesterday, however, he seems to be back-tracking frantically. Following an interview by the BBC with former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf appearing to confirm that MI5 did indeed turn a blind eye to the use of torture, Richard Norton-Taylor and other members of our esteemed Fourth Estate are once again quoting Baroness Manningham-Buller's dicredited li(n)es to the ISC as gospel truth, and forgeting both the serving head of MI5's unavoidable confession and the evidence from the Mohamed court case itself.
The ISC was put in place following the 1994 Intelligence Services Act as a democratic fig-leaf: it is not a fully-functioning, independent oversight committee, as it is only able to report on matters of spy policy, finance and administration. It has no powers to investigate properly allegations of crime, torture or operational incompetence, is unable to demand documents or interview witnesses under oath, and is appointed by and answerable only to the Prime Minister. It has been lied to by the spies and senior police time and time again - the very people it notionally oversees. As I have written before, the ISC has since its inception failed to address many key intelligence matters of the day, instead spending its time nitpicking over details.
In the face of this utter lack of intelligence accountability and transparency, is it any wonder that sites like Wikileaks have caught the public's imagination? Wikileaks is an obvious and necessary reaction to the endemic secrecy, governmental back-scratching and cover-ups that are not only wrong in principle in a notional democracy, but have also resulted directly in illegal wars, torture and the erosion of our traditional freedoms.
This is an excellent article from a European technology strategist and futurist. It succinctly sums up all that is wrong with the old media's coverage of the Wikileaks story over the last year, where people obsess about the technology, the website and the personal life of Julian Assange.
As the article says, we should be focusing on the core issues: illegal wars, war crimes, murder, torture, corporate and political corruption, and diplomatic duplicity.
Let's address the message, not attack the messenger, and certainly not the medium.
Thankyou!
