Brig U Dasgupta RTI Case

Here is the annotated pdf document bringing out the case in more detail while  examining the rights of Brig UD under RTI.

Download (218K)

RAW claims that if they use a DBMS package, then the DBMS package becomes classified !( By extension:  If they use Microsoft word, then Microsoft Word becomes classified and security and integrity of the nation s at stake !) See the jpg here: Download (115 KB)

The lack of solid case is  evident from the document which reveals a lot of the case.




NB: I have obtained the document from public sources

NSCS spying case: RTI reply shows cracks in police theory

NSCS spying case: RTI reply shows cracks in police theory
Daily News & Analysis
The sensational case came to light in June 2006 where Delhi police claimed that it has arrested three persons -- RAW official Brigadier Ujjal Dasgupta, ...


Analyze the case against the officers from the Criminal requirement ( highlighted in red) of Mens Rea and Causal relationship:

Mens Rea
A. Overview
 There must be a mental element to a crime
 Justifiable reasons are not used when considering mens rea
 No valid criminal conviction can be obtained without proving the mental element for each charge
B. General Requirements of Culpability (italics = mine)

(1) Minimum requirements of Culpability - except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposefully ,knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense

(2) Kinds of culpability defined

(a) Purposefully - Conscious objective to achieve a harmful result; similar to intentional
 Result crimes: Murder, Theft, Battery (defendant must intent the result)
 Conduct crimes: DWI, perjury (defendant is engaging in conduct that is likely to have a bad result)
 Attendant circumstance crimes: burglary, bigamy, statutory rape (some condition must be present in addition to the conduct / result)

(b) Knowingly - Actor is aware the result will occur; aware his conduct is of this nature and the result is practically certain

(c) Recklessly - Consciously creates or disregards a substantial and unjust risk; involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable law abiding person

(d) Negligently - Inadvertent creation of the risk; failure to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk

(3) recklessly is the lowest element required when none are prescribed in the statute

(4) apply mens rea to all elements unless otherwise divided

(5) higher levels of culpability can substitute for lower levels

knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense

 Causal Relationships

(1) Conduct is the cause of a result when:

(a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and

(b) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the code or by the law defining the offense

(2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless:

(a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or

(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense

(3) " " substitute "risk" for "purpose or contemplation"

(4) When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct

The interpretation  of some official in NSCS does or does  not  make a crime from the Mens Rea and also Causal Relationships perspective.

The whole case falls on its own face!
How tenuous the case is and the officers spent 5 years in Tihar jail on the words of some character in NSCS! That official can not classify the document retrospectively on the basis of his "opinion". What a tragedy.

The minutes of the meeting is very well known to the "foreign agent" to whom the officers were accused of passing the information because she also attended the very same meeting!

How ridiculous the charge could get!

Nath

Computer Forensics for Lawyers

Link Farm:

1. Cross-examination of the Computer Forensics Expert  http://www.craigball.com/expertcross.pdf
2. http://www.craigball.com/CF_0807-Digital%20Clock%20article%20only.pdf
3. Five articles on Computer Forensics for lawyers http://www.craigball.com/cf.pdf
4. A Topic Both Timely and Timeless http://jolt.richmond.edu/v10i5/article49.pdf
5. LAWTECH GURU BLOG by Jeff Beard http://www.lawtechguru.com/
6. Electronic Discovery and Evidence  http://arkfeld.blogs.com/ede/
7. Links to links http://www.e-evidence.info/links.html
8. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldiscovery/library.html
9. http://www.navigantconsulting.com/downloads/e-disc_procedures-byState.pdf
10. http://www.krollontrack.com/library/discovery_krollontrack2009.pdf
11. Electronic Discovery and Evidence http://arkfeld.blogs.com/ede/
12. http://www.data-hiding.com/

Foensic Science:a major conference, a blockbuster report and reasons to be pessimistic

 
This article appears in the following Law, Probability and Risk issue: SPECIAL ISSUE Forensic Science For The 21st Century: The ASU Conference. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, April 2009 [View the issue table of contents]

Forensic science reform in the 21st century: a major conference, a blockbuster report and reasons to be pessimistic

Jonathan J. Koehler Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
Email: jay.koehler@northwestern.edu

	Abstract

A 2009 conference at Arizona State University brought together leading scholars to discuss the future of forensic science in light of the blockbuster National Academy of Sciences report entitled ‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward’. This paper introduces the special issue on forensic science that this conference spawned, considers the significance of the report and then offer reasons to be pessimistic about whether major reforms are forthcoming.

Keywords: evidence; forensic science; individualization; National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council

[Reprint (PDF) Version of Koehler]

---

Abstract 2 of 5 © The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

This article appears in the following Law, Probability and Risk issue: SPECIAL ISSUE Forensic Science For The 21st Century: The ASU Conference. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, April 2009 [View the issue table of contents]

What ‘Strengthening Forensic Science’ today means for tomorrow: DNA exceptionalism and the 2009 NAS Report

Erin Murphy Assistant Professor, University of California Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
Email: eemurphy@law.berkeley.edu
Received on 23 August 2009. Revised on 18 October 2009.

	Abstract

Congress explicitly ordered the National Academy of Science to investigate ‘non-DNA’ forensic techniques. But DNA typing nonetheless exerted great influence over every aspect of the process, from the story of how the committee came into existence to the final contents of the report's pages. This article unearths the pivotal role played by DNA typing in the formation and execution of the committee's mission. It then uses that history to caution against ‘DNA exceptionalism’—the inclination to view DNA as uniquely impermeable to error or as requiring less oversight and scrutiny than traditional methods. Instead, this article argues that the committee's recommendations should be interpreted as safeguards essential for all forensic methods, not just the ones expressly covered by the report.

Keywords: NAS Report; DNA; forensic science; evidence

[Reprint (PDF) Version of Murphy]

---

Abstract 3 of 5 © The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

This article appears in the following Law, Probability and Risk issue: SPECIAL ISSUE Forensic Science For The 21st Century: The ASU Conference. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, April 2009 [View the issue table of contents]

Who speaks for science? A response to the National Academy of Sciences Report on forensic science

Simon A. Cole Associate Professor of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7080, USA
Email: scole@uci.edu
Received on 15 May 2009. Revised on 15 September 2009. Accepted on 16 September 2009.

	Abstract

This response focuses on the treatment of latent print identification by the recent National Academy of Science (NAS) Report on forensic science. It begins by situating the Report in the historical context of a decade of controversy over the validity of latent print identification. Stark disagreement between the academic and judicial communities over this issue created a situation in which the question of which of these two communities would ‘speak for science’ became contested. The Report's support of the academic position demonstrated the lack of support among non-practitioners for the claims of extreme discrimination and accuracy advanced on behalf of latent prints. The Report in some sense constitutes the response of institutionalized science to this issue. Nonetheless, it is still unclear whether the Report will function, as some may have hoped, as a ‘court of last resort’ on this issue or whether the courts themselves will again arbitrate it. The response then turns to the issue of how latent print conclusions can be reported in the wake of the NAS Report. The Report expresses clear disapproval of the reporting framework currently mandated by latent print professional organizations, creating a tension around the reporting of analyses. The response concludes that semantic resolutions to this tension are undesirable compared to resolutions based on empirical data.

Keywords: National Academy of Science; forensic science; fingerprint; expert witnesses; general acceptance

[Reprint (PDF) Version of Cole]

---

Abstract 4 of 5 © The Author [2010]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

This article appears in the following Law, Probability and Risk issue: SPECIAL ISSUE Forensic Science For The 21st Century: The ASU Conference. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, April 2009 [View the issue table of contents]

The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensic science

Itiel E. Dror Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London (UCL) and Cognitive Consultants International (CCI) Ltd, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK
Jennifer L. Mnookin
Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Email: i.dror@ucl.ac.uk. More information is available at www.CognitiveConsultantsInternational.com
Email: mnookin@law.ucla.edu
Received on 14 May 2009. Revised on 19 October 2009. Accepted on 3 November 2009.

	Abstract

Cognitive technologies have increased in sophistication and use, to the point of interactively collaborating and distributing cognition between technology and humans. The use of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS), computerized databases of fingerprints, by latent fingerprint experts, is a par-excellence illustration of such a partnership in forensic investigations. However, the deployment and use of cognitive technology is not a simple matter. If a technology is going to be used to its maximum potential, we must first understand the implications and consequences of using it and make whatever adaptations are necessary both to the technology and to the way humans work with it. As we demonstrate with AFIS, latent fingerprint identification has been transformed by technology, but the strategies used by humans who work with this technology have not adequately been modified and adjusted in response to these transformations. For example, the chances that an AFIS search will produce prints with incidental similarities—i.e. that highly similar, look-alike, prints from different sources will result from an AFIS search—has not been sufficiently investigated or explored. This risk, as well as others, may mean that the use of AFIS introduces new concerns into the process of latent fingerprint identification, some of which may even increase the chances of making erroneous identifications. Only by appropriate and explicit adaptation to the new potential and the new challenges posed by the new technology will AFIS and other cognitive technologies produce efficient and effective partnerships.

Keywords: cognitive technology; bias; AFIS; database searches; fingerprint identification; forensic science; evidence experts; judgment and decision making

[Reprint (PDF) Version of Dror and Mnookin]

---

Abstract 5 of 5 © The Author [2010]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

This article appears in the following Law, Probability and Risk issue: SPECIAL ISSUE Forensic Science For The 21st Century: The ASU Conference. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, April 2009 [View the issue table of contents]

Rational bias in forensic science

Glen Whitman Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8374, USA
Roger Koppl
Professor of Economics and Finance, Department of Economics and Finance and Institute for Forensic Science Administration, Silberman School of Business, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ 07940, USA
Email: glen.whitman@gmail.com
Email: koppl@fdu.edu
Received on 26 May 2009. Revised on 1 October 2009.

	Abstract

The current organization of forensic science induces biases in the conduct of forensic science even if forensic scientists are perfectly rational. Assuming forensic examiners are flawless Bayesian statisticians helps us to identify structural sources of error that we might otherwise have undervalued or missed altogether. Specifically, forensic examiners’ conclusions are affected not just by objective test results but also by two subjective factors: their prior beliefs about a suspect's likely guilt or innocence and the relative importance they attach to convicting the guilty rather than the innocent. The authorities—police and prosecutors—implicitly convey information to forensic examiners by their very decision to submit samples for testing. This information induces the examiners to update their prior beliefs in a manner that results in a greater tendency to provide testimony that incriminates the defendant. Forensic results are in a sense ‘contaminated’ by the prosecution and thus do not provide jurors with an independent source of information. Structural reforms to address such problems of rational bias include independence from law enforcement, blind proficiency testing and separation of test from interpretation.

Keywords: forensic science; bias; Bayesian; NAS report; organization

[Reprint (PDF) Version of Whitman and Koppl]

Online ISSN 1470-840X - Print ISSN 1470-8396

Anachronism of OSA 1923 and myopic delusion of law makers/enforcers of India

I had shared this earlier with some.

Planning on an adventure hike in your area of interest and wished you had the military maps of your area ?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/nc-43-07a.jpg This is 1:25000 map of my home area Palghat


You can get the map of your area of interest  here:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/

=========================================================

India Maps

---

The following maps were produced by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, unless otherwise indicated.
Country Maps

• India (Political) 2001 (257K) and pdf format (276K)
• India (Political) 1996 (357K) and pdf format (349K)
• India (Shaded Relief) 2001 (273K) and pdf format (287K)
• India (Shaded Relief) 1996 (383K) and pdf format (373K)
• India (Shaded Relief) 1979 (377K) and pdf format (396K)
• India (Small Map) 2008 (20K)

Detailed Maps

• India and Pakistan Topographic Maps, Series U502, 1:250,000, U.S. Army Map Service, 1955-
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands from The Indian Ocean Atlas, CIA, 1976 (315K)
• Bombay (Tactical Pilotage Chart) original scale 1:500,000. Portion of Defense Mapping Agency TPC J-8C, Edition 4, 18 November 1991, printed 1992 (328K) Not for navigational use
• Calcutta (Tactical Pilotage Chart) original scale 1:500,000. Portion of Defense Mapping Agency TPC J-9B 1991 (1.46 MB) Not for navigational use
• China-India Border: Eastern Sector 1988 (452K)
• China-India Border: Western Sector 1988 (319K)
• Delhi and Agra (Operational Navigation Chart) original scale 1:1,000,000. Portion of Defense Mapping Agency ONC H-9, Edition 7, 27 January 1984 (834K) Not for navigational use
• Kashmir Maps
• Lakshadweep (Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands) from The Indian Ocean Atlas, CIA, 1976 (171K)
• Sikkim (Shaded Relief) 1981 (302K)

Historical Maps

• Bhuj-Anjar Area, Gujarat (Topographic Map) original scale 1:250,000. Portion of Sheet NF 42-3, Series U502, U.S. Army Map Service 1959 (618K)
• Bombay 1909 from The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island. Volume 1. Bombay, India 1909 (386K)
• Bombay 1954 (City Plan) original scale 1:50,000 U.S. Army Map Service 1954 (233K)
• Bombay - North 1954 (Topographic Map) original scale 1:250,000. Portion of Kalyan, Sheet NE 43-1, Series U502, U.S. Army Map Service compiled in 1954 and printed in 1963 (548K)
• Bombay - South 1954 (Topographic Map) original scale 1:250,000. Portion of Bombay, Sheet NE 43-5, Series U502, U.S. Army Map Service, compiled in 1954, no publication date given (314K)
• Calcutta 1945 (City Plan) from The Calcutta Key: Welcome United States Army. United States Army Forces in India-Burma, Information and Education Branch. Calcutta, 1945 (356K)
• Damao [Daman] 1954 (Topographic Map) original scale 1:250,000. Portion of Navsari, Sheet NF 43-13, Series U502, U.S. Army Map Service compiled in 1954 and printed in 1956 (549K)
• Delhi and Vicinity 1962 (City Plan) original scale 1:50,000 U.S. Army Map Service 1962 (264K)
• India 1700-1792 from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923 (645K)
• India 1760 from The Public Schools Historical Atlas edited by C. Colbeck. Longmans, Green, and Co. 1905 (222K)
• India 1882 from A Dictionary Practical, Theoretical, and Historical of Commerce and Commercial Navigation by J.R. M'Culloch. Longmans, Green and Co. London, 1882 (555K)
• India and Pakistan Topographic Maps, Series U502, 1:250,000, U.S. Army Map Service, 1955-
• Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Topographic Map) original scale 1:250,000. Portion of Sheet NG 42-8, Series U502, U.S. Army Map Service 1959 (464K)
• Kerala State (Topographic Map) original scale 1:1,000,000. Portion of Coimbatore sheet. NC 43, Series 1301. U.S. Army Map Service, Corps of Engineers, 1965 (464K)

Thematic Maps

• India - Energy Map from "India: An Energy Sector Overview", 1997, U.S. Energy Information Administration (55K)
• India - Language and Minority Religions from Map No. 501057 1973 (212K)
• India - Major Crop Areas from Map No. 501057 1973 (205K)
• India - Population from Map No. 501057 1973 (186K)
• India's Religions 1987 (224K)

---

Maps on Other Web Sites

• City Map Sites
• Country Map Sites

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you are tech savvy, you can install a Google earth  software in your nexus one phone


Warning: Don't go any where near any intelligence or Defense  establishment lest some over  enthusiastic sleuth should book you under  OSA 1923 crime!
Punishment:

1. Defense establishment: 14 years
2. Intelligence est: 3 years

British lawmakers of 1923 did not know that you can get all this from  from public domain !

Indian lawmakers and law enforcers  of 2010 are still under myopic delusion!
Anachronism of OSA 1923 is self delusional.

The Intelligence and Security Committee is a committee of parliamentarians appointed by the Prime Minister of UK to oversee the work of the Intelligence machinery of the United Kingdom. It was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994.^[1] It is unique inasmuch as it is not a committee of Parliament, but consists of nine parliamentarians appointed by, and reporting directly to, the Prime Minister. In this capacity it has greater powers than a select committee of Parliament, being able to demand papers from former governments and official advice to ministers, both of which are forbidden to select committees.


In India, the local police SHO (thanedar) oversee application of OSA 1923 on the citizens of India!


One consolation is: In Pakistan and Bangladesh, things are no different

See for yourself:

1. India: 
1. http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/THE%20OFFICIAL%20SECRETS%20ACT,%201923
   
2. Pakistan
1. http://www.intermedia.org.pk/mrc/medialawdocs/OfficialSecretAct.pdf
3. Bangladesh:
1. http://www.drishtipat.org/HRLaw/secrets.htm
2. http://bdlaws.gov.bd/pdf_part.php?id=132

Why Official Secrets Act needs a review: B Raman October 01, 2007


Our laws are  lagging technology and society as that of Pakistan & Bangladesh!
Pakistan & Bangladesh has the excuse that their technology and society is also lagging far behind.
Do we have that excuse?

Breaking a steganography software: Camouflage

  
 

Caveat: Most of the home grown steganography software written by amateurs (including MCTE, Mhow) are easily breakable! (Thank GOD, Army did NOT say that the MCTE software is Classified! Had they said that, you can only call them stupid and nieve!) Any thing that is NOT open source and  NOT reviewed by Cryptographic community is total hog wash and  what is called "snake oil" in America.

For more on "snake oil" cryptography: read here:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9902.html#snakeoil

http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html

 

Breaking a (very weak) steganography software: Camouflage

1. Background

Steganography is the technique for hiding data inside other data, for example, to hide a secret message inside a picture, or a secret picture inside a music file. There are several techniques to do that, and several softwares available. Some use complex algorithms and are pretty good at doing their job (it's difficult to affirm that there is actually hidden data, and even more difficult to retrieve it), some other use very simple algorithms and are easy to detect and break. You can find reliable and scientific information about steganography, digital watermarking (which is basically the same thing) and how to detect them on several web pages on the web, like the Neil Johnson site, the Fabien Petitcolas site, the Outguess page (here you can find a tool to detect steganography in images), and several others.
A few days ago, actually September 11th of 2002, first anniversary of the attack in the United States, there was a short subject talking about steganography use by terrorists. It was aired on the french private TV network "Canal Plus" on the show "Le Journal des Bonnes Nouvelles". Not only the tabloïd-like subject by itself raised my bullshit detector alarm to the red level (it's an old rumour, never proven, but the journalists transformed this rumour in facts: they said several times that terrorists actually used steganography), but also there was a lot of technical errors in the commentary. Sloppy and cheap journalism at its best, using the last hype or rumours to scare the audience.
They did a "demonstration" of a "famous" and "unbreakable, even by the NSA" steganography sofware, which hides data in a "totally indetectable way", and is "illegal". Here are some screenshots of the show:

 ................

For more:  http://www.guillermito2.net/stegano/camouflage/index.html

	The original JPG picture, without anything hidden in it, is 5,139 bytes.
	The original picture with the secret message added, without password, size is 6,021 bytes.
	The original picture, with the secret message added, password is "aaaa", size is 6,021 bytes.
	The original picture, with the secret message added, password is "a" repeated 255 times, size is 6,021 bytes. 255 bytes is the maximum size for the password, you will understand why later; if it's longer it will produce an error (we could probably use this for a classical buffer overflow exploit to force Camouflage to execute some arbitrary cod

   5. Conclusions

Don't trust what is said on TV, journalists don't know what they are talking about, and instead of doing a little bit of research asking  competent people (there are plenty in the academia and the corporate worlds), they fall for the hype, and listen to people who are incompetent or just want to have their faces on a TV screen.
Most of the steganography software around are easy to detect and to break.
If the algorithm used in some encryption or steganography software is not documented precisely, its strength is probably very weak. Never use them for serious security purposes.
Don't trust what you see on the internet, and that includes this page. Be especially aware of people with a big mouth who use big words ("unbreakable", "undetectable", etc...). Test everything yourself, or ask different people who may know more. There are plenty of forums on Usenet with specialists about almost any subject you can imagine.
[Note written much later: I've since discovered some other tools to unprotect Camouflage files:
- CKFP (Camouflage / Kamaleon File Patcher) by Vikt0ry.
- CamouflageCrack by Kasky.
- CamoDetect Perl script by Andrew Christensen, found on PacketStorm]
Have a nice day!


Source: http://www.guillermito2.net/stegano/camouflage/index.html


Take home: 

1. Most amateur cryptography and steganography software are  breakable. The fact that you can not see the "secret message" with your naked eyes means nothing. Most media people talk non-sense when they say a software that is unbreakable.
2. Relevance for UD case: You can not convict  an honourable soldier based on such nieve pseudo-scientific criteria. If proscution can, they should  break the code and prove that there was a "secret message" and what the "secret message was" and how that message involved   a "national secret" and how the "spy had really  betrayed the nation"!  If not, eat the dust and face consequences for "betraying the nation" by torturing and destroying an honourable soldier  who served the nation honourably for 40 years!

20 days after SC order, ex-Brigadier gets medical aid

http://www.dailypioneer.com/252933/20-days-after-SC-order-ex-Brigadier-gets-medical-aid.html



FRONT PAGE | Saturday, May 1, 2010



20 days after SC order, ex-Brigadier gets medical aid



Staff Reporter | New Delhi



The cry of a decorated officer, put behind bars four years ago on charges of espionage with no trial, has somewhat been heard. Following the report in The Pioneer on Friday, Brigadier (Retd) Ujjal Dasgupta, imprisoned in Tihar Jail, was on Friday afternoon admitted to AIIMS for a complete medical investigation. Dasgupta and his friends have been campaigning for proper medical help in the face of the former’s deteriorating health condition.

The Supreme Court had granted permission to Dasgupta for a medical review at AIIMS. While the order was made almost 20 days ago, it was executed only on Friday after The Pioneer carried the news report on the denial of medical facilities to him.

Sources said that Dasgupta will be put on several rounds of medical tests by a committee of doctors at AIIMS during the next few days and then a decision about the heart surgery, if needed, will be taken shortly. Dasgupta had been seeking medical attention to his deteriorating health condition for the past several months. As per his health conditions, Dasgupta will have to undergo a second bypass surgery which, according to medical experts, involves too much risk to the life of the patient.

Sources said that Dasgupta needs to undergo coronary angiography at an ECHS-empanelled hospital which can manage cardiac emergency in case it arises during the procedure. “His stamina would need to be built up for the redo CABG, if indicated, through a good diet, rest and absence of stress. For the redo CABG, it is the patient’s fundamental right to go to an ECHS-empanelled hospital of his choice. Such a choice would be based on an evaluation of the facilities and surgeons available at various hospitals,” said a doctor who conducted a few tests on Dasgupta during the routine medical examination at the RR Hospital.

In his last medical review at the RR Hospital in January 2010, Dasgupta was advised repeat angiography. “Patient has a walking through and rest angina. CT angiography shows significant LCx/RCA/OM disease and all occluded grafts. It is felt in the interest of the patient that he should undergo angiography followed by a redo CABG at an ECHS-empanelled hospital of his choice where a high volume of redo CABGs are being done,” said a remark of the RR Hospital dated January 27, 2010.

As per his medical history, Dasgupta, now 64, had a massive heart attack in November 1988 and had a coronary artery bypass graft surgery at AIIMS. He again developed complications in October 2003 for which his coronary angiography was done in Escorts. The following year, the brigadier was put on drugs lifelong and the Delhi High Court allowed his treatment at Army’s Research and Referral Hospital. His condition deteriorated in November 2009 and the findings of ARRH was that the “patient has worsening chest pain on exertion and even at rest. Advised to undergo CT angiography”.

Dasgupta along with three other accused was arrested in 2006. The co-accused Shiv Shankar Paul (38), a systems analyst at the National Security Council Secretariat, his superior officer Commander Mukesh Saini (58) who had retired on March 31, 2006, and Brigadier Ujjal Dasgupta (64), head of the computer section of Research & Analysis Wing, were also accused of espionage and booked under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly passing on information to Rosanna Minchew (31), an American diplomat. Dasgupta, while deputed in the R&AW, was arrested on July 19, while Paul was arrested on June 11 in 2006. Saini was also picked up by the investigators on July 6. Dasgupta was involved in project - Anveshak, a software developed for R&AW by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) as well as the Army. Army has since clarified that the software developed was not classified. The trial is yet to begin in the case.

"If Brig Dasgupta is not guilty, then the Government is."

"If Brig Dasgupta  is not guilty then the Government is."

In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.
--Abraham Lincoln
But the Dreyfus Affair...is not fixed in space and time. The combat of the individual against society, truth against deception, is specific neither to France nor to the end of the nineteenth century.
--Jean-Denis Bredin [1]
What rationale could have possibly been strong enough for France's generally apolitical Army to fabricate an elaborate case against one of its own? Who could possibly let himself believe such a thing, that the honorable men entrusted with the defense of the nation against their immediate, and very threatening enemies, the Germans, could be capable of such an outrage? Had not the Minister of War, General Auguste Mercier, assured the military editor of the influential newspaper Figaro that, from the beginning they had "proofs that cried aloud the treason of Dreyfus" and that his "guilt was absolutely certain"? [6]
Mercier's parliamentary aide, General Riu, put it this way, "Today one must be either for Mercier or for Dreyfus; I am for Mercier." "If Dreyfus is acquitted, Mercier goes," said the royalist-leaning l'Autorite, and a military colleague demonstrated his grasp of what was at stake by noting that, if in a retrial "Captain Dreyfus is acquitted, it is General Mercier who becomes the traitor." L'Autorite raised the stakes one step higher by observing that, since Mercier was a member of the government, "If Dreyfus is not guilty then the Government is."

Just read this famous case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
http://www.dreyfus.culture.fr/en/
http://www.dreyfus.culture.fr/en/the-long-road-to-justice/
http://www.dreyfus.culture.fr/en/the-long-road-to-justice/towards-the-quashing-of-the-case-without-appeal/the-captain-s-affair.htm
Text of J'accuse! (in English and French) a "masterpiece" of polemics and a literary achievement "of imperishable beauty."  No other newspaper article has ever provoked such public debate and controversy or had such an impact on law, justice, and society.
"J'ACCUSE ...!" EMILE ZOLA, ALFRED DREYFUS, AND THE GREATEST NEWSPAPER ARTICLE IN HISTORY Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.


We have found India's Dreyfus !
Where is India's Emile Zola?

Burden of Proof: Relevant Questions in the case of OSA 1923

  

Burden of Proof
The relevant question to ask the Prosecution if the prosecution fails to establish evidence of committal of the offense under Official Secrets Act 1923  (Click link to go to Google document before you read further)

Troubling Facts

1. Brig UDasgupta was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
2. Brig UDasgupta was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
3. Brig UDasgupta was never accused of acting with  intent to harm India.
4. Foremost  is the fact that RAW  and prosecution were unable to provide the court with concrete examples of Brig UDasgupta  having actually harmed our national security.
5. The intelligence agency's damage asessment of  Brig Dasgupta's actions were neither made at all nor was not made available to the courts or to the public.
6. Consisting at best of a series of highly improbable worst-case scenarios, RAW's damage assessment could at best be characterised as  a thinly veiled attempt to portray USA as a reckless and unreliable ally. If not, why the cooperation of the USA was not sought to establish the case against the accused?
7. What is not so clear, however, is why so many people allowed the unwarranted trashing of Brig Dasgupta's character to be used as an indirect means of undermining the perception of USA as one of our country's dependable allies.
8. During the punishment phase of an espionage trial, a judge is supposed to weigh three critical factors: motives, harm and benefit. This is why morally corrupt individuals caught spying for hostile states are usually given extremely harsh sentences, even if the actual damage they caused wasn't that substantial.
9. In Brig Dasgupta's case, although the country he  alleggedly spied for was legally defined as a major ally, RAW and the prosecution went out of the way to  successfully manouvre the courts  into believing  an extremely biased asessment of Brig Dasgupta's actions.
10. Whatever the RAW's motives in characterizing Brig UDasgupta as a bête noire, they are arrogantly undeclared, patently anachronistic and irresponsibly vindictive.
11. Sadly, judging by the continued refusal to address these issues, it would seem that fear has indeed triumphed over due process and common decency. 
12. Brig UDasgupta was purported to be accused of  only one crime:of having a USB in his possession of a private rental agreement the passing of which along with "possible concealed secret information" to an ally USA. 
13. RAW or Prosecution was not able to establish what that secret information was.
14. The maximum punishment : ..he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and in other cases (other than  for offenses not connected with Army, Navy, Air Force etc.) to three years. (See OAS 1923 Para 3 (1) C)
15. The offence allegged has nothing to do with  any work of defense, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp , ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government . Hence the punishment is ONLY 3 years!
16. Being jailed for 5 years with out a charge to defend against is itself a gross  crime against human rights and has  resulted in substantial failure of justice.
17. The fair, moral and principled thing for the President, the Nation, the government,  the prosecution and the courts  to do is release Brig U Dasgupta immediately.
18. Just as the law should not be bent to release Brig Dasgupta, neither should it be bent to keep him behind bars!

HABEAS CORPUS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

  
HABEAS CORPUS
THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right. It is an extraordinary remedy at law. Upon proper application, or even on naked knowledge alone, a court is empowered, and is duty bound, to issue the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding one who is restraining liberty to forthwith produce before the court the person who is in custody and to show cause why the liberty of that person is being restrained. Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged. Habeas Corpus is fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative systems of jurisprudence. It is the ultimate lawful and peaceable remedy for adjudicating the providence of liberty�s restraint. Since the history of Habeas Corpus is predominately English we must visit that history to gain understanding of American use of Habeas Corpus.

ENGLISH HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS: The history of Habeas Corpus is ancient. It appears to be predominately of Anglo-Saxon common law origin. Clearly, it precedes Magna Carta in 1215. Although the precise origin of Habeas Corpus is uncertain in light of it�s antiquity, its principle effect was achieved in the middle ages by various writs, the sum collection of which gave a similar effect as the modern writ. Although practice surrounding the writ has evolved over time, Habeas Corpus has since the earliest times been employed to compel the appearance of a person who is in custody to be brought before a court. And while Habeas Corpus originally was the prerogative writ of the King and his courts, the passage of hundreds of years time has permitted it to evolve into a prerogative writ initiated by the person restrained, or someone acting in his interest rather than by the King or his courts. Magna Carta obliquely makes reference to Habeas Corpus through express reference to �the law of the land�. From Magna Carta the exact quote is: �...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.� The practice and right of Habeas Corpus was settled practice and law at the time of Magna Carta and was thus a fundamental part of the unwritten common �law of the land� as was expressly recognized by Magna Carta.

CIVIL LAW VS. COMMON LAW: However, Habeas Corpus was generally unknown to the various civil law systems of Europe which are generally devolved from Roman and/or Justinian law. European civil law systems tend to favor collective authority from the top down while the Anglo-Saxon common law tends to favor the individual. Thus, it is altogether understandable that the ultimate right to determine the propriety of restraint upon the liberty of an individual is an almost unique feature derived from the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law of England. Indeed, the Magna Carta itself is arguably a reaction to the incursion of European civil law into the English common law legal system via William in 1066. The running tension and contest between the civil law of the �Norman intruders� intrusively confronting the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law continued throughout the period 1066 to the 1640�s when, following the English Civil War, and the beheading of King Charles I in 1649, the people�s parliament clearly established the respective position of King and citizen. In this crucible of contest, the confrontation of top down authoritarian civil law principles clashed and continuously competed with, but then yielded to, the ancient �good old� common law of the land. In the final analysis, the strength and resilience, and I might add common sense, of the evolved, time tested, common law prevailed. The interest of the people as reflected in their common law won a several centuries old contest with the civil law brought to England by the Norman conquest. Habeas Corpus is merely one feature, albeit it an important one, of the common law. As a feature of common law, the right of Habeas Corpus reflects the age old contest between the individual and the state. Habeas Corpus empowers the individual in holding accountable the exercise of the state�s awesome power to restrain liberty.

The frequent use of the great writ reflected the tension between common and civil law practice during the period 1485 thru 1509, generally the reign of Henry VII. At that time Habeas Corpus was employed to secure the liberty of those imprisoned by the Chancellor, the King�s Privy Counsel, the Courts of Admiralty, The Court of High Commission and its prerogative courts including its inquisitorial processes featured by the hated �star chamber court� at Westminster, so called because of the stars on its ceiling. Conversely, the common law preference of accusatorial processes had long been a fixture of Anglo-Saxon history. The modern writ of Habeas Corpus dates from this history. During this period, the sheer frequency of which Habeas Corpus was employed together with its procedure and results, established the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a powerful tool to check the power of the state and to preserve the rights of individuals against the arbitrary power of the King and his Counsel together with the King�s courts. It was the King�s prerogative courts which were given to inquisitorial practices while the parallel system of common law courts employed purely common law accusatorial practices. Thus the arbitrary character of civil law power devolved in England since William�s Norman intrusion was largely checked through employment of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the first part of the sixteenth century. And Habeas Corpus saw frequent use and growth in prominence throughout the reign of Charles I which, in turn, found its bloody end on the chopping block in 1649.

THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT: The English common law practice and procedure respecting Habeas Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act. This historic act of the English Parliament empowered English courts to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus even during periods when the court was not in session and provided significant penalties to the judge, personally, who disobeyed the statute. And while great hypocrisy surrounded the practice of the Habeas Corpus Act in the late 17th century, Habeas Corpus was nevertheless establishing itself as the primary means by which individual liberty was empowered at the expense of the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. During the 19th century the Writ of Habeas Corpus was further expanded to include those held by a purely private process other than that of the state.

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT OF HABEAS CORPUS: As with other features of English common law and practice, by the time of the American Revolutionary War, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was clearly established in all of the British colonies in New England and was generally regarded as part of the fundamental protections guaranteed by law to each citizen. The American Constitution at Article I, Section 9 states that: �The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.� It is important to note that the framers of the Constitution for the United States of America choose to include in the body of the Constitution the Writ of Habeas Corpus while other important individual rights, arguably as an afterthought, were included in the first ten amendments which were popularly called the Bill of Rights. The �afterthought�, that is to say the Bill of Rights, was not included even as amendments until James Madison single handedly, but persistently and successfully, argued before congress for its adoption and passage on 15 December 1791, some two years after the constitution was ratified. This fact sheds light on the importance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as viewed by the framers of the American Constitution at the time it was established.

CIVIL WAR & HABEAS CORPUS: The most famous American Habeas Corpus action prior to the civil war was the case of Ex parte Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave owned by a physician. Upon the death of his master, it was promised that Dred Scott would be set free. However, at that time Dred Scott was still being detained as a slave. Dred Scott petitioned the Federal Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus was granted by the Federal District Court and subsequently upheld by the Federal Court of Appeals. However, the Habeas Corpus was overturned by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that Dred Scott, as a slave, was not a �person� as contemplated by the United States Constitution and therefore did not have the right to petition the Federal Courts for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. As to Dred Scott, the extraordinary writ, the great writ as Sir William Blackstone put it, was effectively suspended. This notable case remains as one of the most controversial Habeas Corpus actions in American history.

As is generally known, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by President Lincoln during the civil war. Chief Justice Roger Tanney, in the case of Ex parte Merryman (See: Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. No.9, 487, p.144 (1861)) strongly excepted suspension of Habeas Corpus by a sitting president and concluded that only the congress had the power of suspension under Article I Section 9 of the constitution. The ruling of the Supreme Court was apparently ignored by the President and the military during the civil war. Congress later authorized the already presidential suspension of the writ in 1863. After 1863, and acting on congressional authorization, the military was permitted to temporarily hold people who were to be turned over to and adjudicated by the civil courts. After the assassination of President Lincoln, and in the case of Ex parte Milligan (See: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866)) the United States Supreme Court granted the writ and once again established that only Congress had the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and that the military had no jurisdiction over the trial of civilians in the post civil war South.

THE MODERN WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: Today the Writ of Habeas Corpus is used in many different ways. It applies to post conviction relief in criminal matters even where the judgment of judge and jury is final. It applies to those who are in police custody but who are not charged with a crime. It applies to those who are awaiting trial but who have not been able to make an excessive bail. It applies to death row prisoners who challenge their death sentence. It applies to prisoners who remain in custody after the expiration of their lawful sentence. Additionally, Habeas Corpus applies to both adults and children who are restrained of their liberty in some meaningful manner but who are not in the actual custody of police or other public authority. For example, Writs of Habeas Corpus have been issued in civil cases on application of a parent where a child�s custody is being sought against the wishes of the other parent who allegedly �restrains� the child. It applies equally to those who have been held because of their mental condition. And the writ applies equally for any other fact or circumstance, civil or criminal, in which the liberty of someone is restrained in any meaningful manner. Habeas Corpus extends even to those who are already released from actual custody on bail and who are contesting the manner and/or authority of the restrictions which bail places on their liberty or the charge for which they have been required to make bail. And although, research by this writer has failed to reveal any cases to date, home schooling contest are subject to the writ of Habeas Corpus. Parents whose authority to home school their own children and who are challenged by the state or other authority may properly file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to adjudicate the dispute as in any other child custody case. And, the writ may properly be signed and filed by an attorney - or - by �any other person� (See: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.12 and 11.13.) who has knowledge of the improvident restraint of liberty. In fact, there is legal precedent recognizing the duty of any citizen to proceed by Writ of Habeas Corpus to notice a court and to invoke the duty of the court as to Habeas Corpus when any illegal restraint of any other citizen is observed.

CAVEAT & SUMMARY: On a more ominous note, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not without its detractors today. Movement is underway throughout the United States and each of the states to curtail the employment and exercise of Habeas Corpus. This questionable, if not highly suspicious, exercise can be divided generally into two camps. Congressional restrictions on the writ; and judicial restrictions on the writ. For example, the United States Congress enacted the anti terrorism act in April of 1996 which effectively stripped the Supreme Court of its power to review lower federal court rulings in Habeas Corpus cases. However, the Supreme Court retained its power to review petitions for Habeas Corpus which are directly submitted to the court. Additionally, and more disturbingly, there is evidence that the Writ of Habeas Corpus has in some jurisdictions been selectively suspended in certain types of cases.

For example, frequently State courts selectively ignore, as a practical matter, the effect of the writ in cases where citizens are charged with the �unauthorized practice of law�. In most of these jurisdictions, it is disturbing to note that it is an agency of the state Supreme Court itself which makes the complaint and then prosecutes the charge. In these cases the supreme court is making the charge, prosecuting the charge only to later sit in final adjudication of the charge before their own court. The consolidation of power as reflected in this practice against the liberty of individual citizens smacks of star chamber practice and should be condemned by state legislators as was the star chamber itself condemned by the English Parliament in 1641. Additionally, many of these cases result in imprisonment of the defendant in a purely civil case only to thereafter be effectively denied review by the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Tragically, in these cases the ordinary review by appeal is also denied leaving the defendant with no adequate remedy under law. The Writ of Habeas Corpus in such cases is simply �overruled� without comment or findings or supporting law. It is precisely this practice which was sought to be avoided by those constitutional provisions pertaining to the separation of powers as well as the constitutional provisions that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is never to be suspended. While all states have constitutional provisions pertaining to the separation of powers only a few states have provisions prohibiting the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Nevertheless, the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus remains as the final and most fundamental process by which one may test the propriety of a restraint on individual liberty.

Joseph Dale Robertson

Steganography: A Brief Video Survey

  
Steganography





Steganography: S-tools



Hiding files in a .jpg (any type of file)

What we can all do?

  
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history!!! Mohandas Gandhi

1. Study import of the archaic Black Law of OSA and the effect on the RTI and highlight in public media.
2. Write to your Parliamentarian about the misuse of OSA for silencing those who are in the know how of what is wrong within government departments.
3. Write to human Rights commission and organizations around the world of abuses in the name of official Secrets
4. Bring media attention to the Black Law of OSA through letters to the Editor in English and all regional newspapers.

Official Secrets Act: State of Black Art around Commonwealth

The Official Secrets Act is any of several Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security. The latest revision is Official Secrets Act 1989 (1989 chapter 6), which removed the public interest defence by repealing section 2 of Official Secrets Act 1911.

People working with sensitive information are commonly required to sign a statement to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. This is popularly referred to as "signing the Official Secrets Act". Signing this has no effect on which actions are legal as the act is not a contract. As the act is law individuals are bound by it whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets.

Proposed Revisions in the Age of Terror

The ISC annual report for 2005-2006 on UK intelligence services states:

"Official Secrets Act113. The Home Office has bid for a legislative slot in the next session to amend theOfficial Secrets Act 1989. (At the time of publication it was still awaitingconfirmation of its place in the timetable.) The Home Office has informed theCommittee that, in its view, the proposed Bill should remove the common lawdefence of ‘duress of circumstance' in order to address unauthorised disclosure bymembers, or former members, of the intelligence and security Agencies. The Billshould also put an element of the associated ‘authorisation to disclose' procedureonto a statutory footing and increase penalties. This proposal has yet to receivepolicy clearance across Whitehall." (emphasis added)

The full report can be found here:http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/intelligence/annualir0506.pdf

History and Function of 'Duress of Circumstance'

Terms of the 1911 Act

The act applies in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and in overseas crown territories and colonies. It also applies to British subjects anywhere else in the world.
* Section 1 - spying. The section is very broadly drafted, and if spying is proved by the prosecution then the section specifically puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show that he acted with innocent motives. The maximum sentence is 14 years in prison. British spy George Blake was sentenced to a total of 42 years for offences under this section.
* Section 7 - harbouring spies. 2 years.
*Section 8 - prosecutions under this act require the permission of the Attorney General.
*Section 9 - search warrants. Very unusually, this section gives senior police officers (of the rank superintendent) the power to issue a search warrant in an emergency, if there is no time to obtain one from a judge.

Terms of the 1920 Act

*Section 1 - wearing false uniforms, making false statements, forging official documents, impersonating people, keeping documents or codes etc. without authorisation, and other offences. All punishable by 2 years in prison.
*Section 2 - a specific rule of evidence in prosecutions under section 1 of the 1911 Act. Communicating with a foreign agent is admissible as evidence that the defendant intended to help an enemy.
*Section 3 - misleading or obstructing a police officer or soldier on duty at a prohibited place. ("Prohibited place" is defined at length by section 3 of the 1911 Act.) 2 years.
*Section 6 - refusing to cooperate with a police investigation into a suspected offence under section 1 of the 1911 Act. 2 years.
*Section 7 - attempting, inciting, or aiding or abetting an offence under the 1911 or 1920 acts. This section also makes it an offence to prepare to commit an offence under either act. This is much wider than ordinary British attempt law.
*Section 8 - sets the penalties for the offences under both acts.

Terms of the 1989 Act

The act applies in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and in overseas crown territories and colonies. Unusually, the terms of the act apply to affected persons (who are generally employees of the British government) wherever they are in the world.
* Section 1 - disclosure of security and intelligence information. It applies only to members of the security and intelligence services, and to others who work with security and intelligence information (and who have been informed that they are affected by section 1).
* Section 2 - disclosure of defense information. This section applies only to crown servants and government contractors (defined in section 12)
* Section 3 - disclosure of information concerning international relations. This section applies only to crown servants and government contractors.
* Section 4 - disclosure of law enforcement information which would assist a criminal or the commission of a crime. This section applies only to crown servants and government contractors.
* Section 5 - further disclosure or publication of information obtained in contravention of other sections of the act. It allows, for example, the prosecution of newspapers or journalists who publish secret information leaked to them by a crown servant in contravention of section 3. This section applies to everyone, regardless of whether they are a government employee, or whether they have signed the act.
* Section 6 - secret information belonging to foreign governments or international organisations. This section is intended to protect secrets shared by foreign governments and those of international organisations such as NATO and Interpol.
* Section 7 - defines the circumstances under which a disclosure of secret information is officially published. It is not a crime to disclose information that has been officially published according to the mechanism described in this section.
* Section 8 - makes it a crime for a crown servant or government contractor to retain information beyond their official need for it, and obligates them to properly protect secret information from accidential disclosure.
* Section 9 - limits the circumstances under which a prosecution under the act may take place. Prosecutions under section 4 require the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or his equivalent in Northern Ireland. Prosecutions under other sections require the permission of the Attorney General or his equivalent in Northern Ireland.
* Section 10 - sets the penalties for contravening the act. Persons convicted under sections 4,5, and 8 are subject to six months in prison and a fine; persons convicted under other sections are subject to two years imprisonment and a fine.
* Section 11 - amends existing police legislation, making contraventions of this act arrestable offences and allowing for the issuance of search warrants.
* Section 12 - defines who is a crown servant and government contractor. This includes civil servants, members of the government, members of the armed forces and their reserve equivalents (including the Territorial Army), police officers, and employees and contract employees of government departments and agencies defined by the Home Secretary.
* Section 15 - makes it a crime for British citizens and crown servants to disclose information abroad which would be illegal for them to do so in the UK. This is intended to cover espionage (where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information to a foreign power) and cases where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information, perhaps to a newspaper. The terms of this section do not apply to disclosures covered by sections 4,5, and 8.

Sections (12,13,14, and 16) are present in the act for technical reasons.

In order for a crime to be committed, the following conditions must apply:# the disclosure must not be by means permitted in section 7# the person making the disclosure must know, or should know, that their disclosure is unauthorised# the disclosure must cause harm to the UK or its interests, or it could reasonably be believed that harm could occur, and# the person making the disclosure must know, or should know, that such harm could occur

The sections pertaining to crown servants, intelligence officers, and government contractors apply only to information obtained by that person in the course of their official duties; these sections do not apply if the information was obtained by other means (although section 5 would apply).

It is not a defence under the act that the disclosure is in the national or public interest.

Other countries

The phrase official secrets act may also be used to refer to statutes of a similar nature in other countries such as India's Official Secrets Act 1923. Canada has similar legislation titled the Security of Information Act. The U.S. also has several laws, see Espionage Act.

In the Republic of Ireland the Official Secrets Act, 1963, repealed previous British legislation of 1911 and 1920. The Official Secrets Act, as amended, applies to all civil servants and potentially anyone within the state. A suit may only be instigated at the approval of the Attorney General of Ireland, additionally proceedings may occur in camera but the verdict and any sentence must occur in public.

New Zealand had a 1951 Official Secrets Act. It was replaced by the Official Information Act in 1983.

See also

* Al Jazeera bombing memo
* Clive Ponting, whose successful Public Interest defence (to a prosecution under the 1911 Act) led to that clause being removed in the 1989 revision.
* David Shayler, former MI5 agent prosecuted under the Act after passing documents to the Mail on Sunday newspaper.
* O'Connor - Keogh official secrets trial
* Richard Tomlinson, former MI6 agent imprisoned in 1997 for breaking the 1989 Act, by attempting to publish a book detailing his career.
*Katherine Gunn, Former GCHQ translator arrested under the act whose case was later dropped by the goverment.

External links

* Official Secrets Act 1989 (official text from Office of Public Sector Information, formerly HMSO)
* BBC News: Troubled history of Official Secrets Act
* Security of Information Act (Canada)

Read from source:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/o/of/official_secrets_act.htm