back to article Gung-ho tank gamer spills classified docs in effort to win online argument

Hungary-based game developer Gaijin Entertainment found themselves in a tactically difficult position last week when a user of their combat simulator War Thunder tried to win an online argument by sharing classified documents in the company's game forums. The unfortunate security breach came during an online debate over the …

  1. Wellyboot Silver badge

    Being banned from the forum may well be the least of the Tidworth Twits upcoming problems.

    1. X5-332960073452
      Facepalm

      An Eadon moment

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Go Directly To Jail

    Do not pass GO. Do not collect £200.

  3. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Joke

    In the public domain

    Can I publish stuff I found at a bus stop?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57624942

    Or should I do the usual thing and hand it in to the BBC?

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: In the public domain

      I think that one was ment to be found and handed to the BBC......

      As for tank man, lets hope he was posting from a communal computer in the mess rather than the one in his barracks room......

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In the public domain

        Readers of a certain age may recall the case of Lt. Alan West in the 1980s. While working for the MOD, he took a dog for a walk along a canal towpath. (It wasn't even his dog.) Unfortunately a number of classified documents fell out of his pocket. They were found by a passer-by, who by coincidence was a journalist on the Daily Mail. The documents detailed proposed cuts to the Navy, and the Government was forced to abandon the plan following publication.

        As to how West's career was damaged, you will be pleased to know that he was able to get over it. As Admiral Lord West of Spithead, he became First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. He is currently a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

        1. ShadowDragon8685

          Re: In the public domain

          To be fair, "forcing the government to abandon plans to drop the axe on the Navy" sounds like a net positive from any perspective except the beancounters'.

          Perhaps there's a reason he was made an Admiral Lord?

    2. cageordie

      Re: In the public domain

      Serious question? No. The OSA does not require you to have signed it, that's just icing on the cake. Ignorance is no defense. Classified is classified and the laws apply. Just like speeding when you claim you didn't see the limit sign, even if you turned on from a side road and there wasn't one. So if you find something interesting and decide to give it to the BBC that's pretty bad, if you decide to sell it to the Russians or Chinese then you may not have to worry where your next meal is coming from for quite a few years.

      1. JimboSmith Silver badge

        Re: In the public domain

        I was waiting for a bus recently when two British Transport Police officers joined me. i watched as they stopped a couple of cyclists for cycling on the pavement. One was a Uber Eats/Deliveroo/Just Eat person, He said he had no idea that he wasn't allowed to do this it was different in his home country. Whilst they're talking to him a commuter tries to cycle by again on the pavement.

        The second officer stopped him and he claimed it was a "shared space" for bikes and pedestrians. Officer pointed out the the clearly indicated cycle lane and the barrier that segregated the traffic and cyclists. Cyclists don't like it because it goes round the outside of a large roundabout adding extra time. Officer says the cyclisti is only using the pavement because it was a more direct route.

        Both of the offenders were then introduced to the Highways Act/Highway Code. They both said they'd never heard of this only to be told that ignorance of the law is no defence. Bus appeared and they were given a verbal warning. Not exactly OSA stuff but given I've been clipped by a cyclist there, very welcome.

        1. nintendoeats

          Re: In the public domain

          GOOD.

          There are times when I believe it is appropriate to cycle on the sidewalk, but the fact that people treat it as the default is dangerous and they ought to be shot.

        2. Cynic_999

          Re: In the public domain

          Ignorance of the law is indeed no defence. Ignorance of the *facts* however can be a valid defence. e.g. - you are caught with a bag of cocaine in your bag. It is no defence to say that you were unaware that possession of cocaine is a crime. It is however a valid defence to say that you were unaware that there was a bag of cocaine in your bag, or that you believed that it was a bag of talcum powder.

          In this case, it would be a defence to say that the "unclassified" stamp caused the person to believe that it was not a classified document.

          Conversely, ignorance of the facts can also make a legal act illegal. If you are caught selling a bag of talcum powder, but it can be proven that you thought it was a bag of cocaine, you can be convicted of a drug offence.

          But if you are found to be carrying a banana, you cannot be convicted of an offence even if you erroneously believe that possession of a banana is illegal (ignorance of the law cannot make a legal act illegal).

          1. ShadowDragon8685

            Re: In the public domain

            So, what if you're found selling a bag of talcum powder, that you knew was talcum powder but represented as cocaine?

            You haven't sold cocaine (it was talcum powder), and you weren't under the impression that you were trafficking in a controlled substance (you knew it was talcum powder).

            I imagine they still convict you of fraud, right?

      2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: In the public domain

        cageordie: "Just like speeding when you claim you didn't see the limit sign, even if you turned on from a side road and there wasn't one."

        In that specific example you do have a case as there is a responsibility on local authorities etc. to ensure that the speed limit signs are present and visible. If there was no sign at the junction you are entitled to believe that the speed limit has not changed.

        However, as a driver you also have the responsibility to drive safely at all times according to actual road conditions, irrespective of the posted speed limit. So in icy conditions or when visibility is severely reduced, you should drive slowly. Conversely a man was fined for dangerous driving because he was doing 70mph (the legal limit) on a motorway when everyone else was driving at 85mph+. I believe that the Police may have argued that they could not practicably stop all the other drivers, and that driving at 85mph was safer than 70mph, despite being technically illegal. You can break all sorts of road traffic laws if it will avoid a collision or is safer than obeying them.

        Happy driving everyone!

        1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

          Re: In the public domain

          That is an urban myth.

          You *cannot* be charged with obeying the lawfully imposed speed limit - you can be charged for not driving with due care and attention if that limit is unsafe but that's another issue.

          You *cannot* be charged with *not* exceeding the lawful speed limit.

          You *can* be charged for exceeding a speed limit (or not obeying legally enforceable road signage) even in potential life and death situations (as a number or ambulance drivers found out a few years ago, though the attitude towards these offences has been somewhat relaxed after the negative publicity at the time).

          Any argument about "breaking laws to make something safer" will only be addressed by the common sense of an officer of the law at the time or the officer of the court when you plead your case, it is not a God given right.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: In the public domain

            Unfortunately, in the US at least, you are incorrect. I actually know someone who was charged with "reckless driving" for driving at the speed limit while everyone else was doing 10-15 mph over. It may be possible to take it to court and get out of it, but that doesn't prevent an officer from stopping you and issuing a ticket.

            1. Swarthy
              WTF?

              Re: In the public domain

              The good ol' US of A - Where you WILL break several laws each day, because to avoid breaking a law, you must break another one.

              We are all guilty (of something) which grants the police and courts a lot of leverage.

              (what's a police state again?))

        2. Jan 0 Silver badge

          Re: In the public domain

          > a man was fined for dangerous driving because he was doing 70mph (the legal limit) on a motorway when everyone else was driving at 85mph+

          I ccould believe that he was fined for _obstruction_ if he wasn't in the extreme left lane.

          1. wjake

            Re: In the public domain

            Or extreme right lane? Depending on left or right hand pondiness!

            1. J. Cook Silver badge

              Re: In the public domain

              The correct term, I think, is "the fast lane".

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: In the public domain

          Quote: "a man was fined for dangerous driving because he was doing 70mph"

          Assuming that was even true, it would likely be the case of someone hogging lanes, and that's what the dangerous driving would be.

          A few years ago, one of my old work colleagues got pulled whilst doing 70mph on the motorway (I was a passenger). His attitude was "I'm doing the max legal speed, so no one else should need to pass me". Thing is he did this whilst sitting in the outside lane. Only time he changed lanes was when turning off at a junction, then straight out again to the outside lane again.

          Made me feel quite nervous, impatient people close behind, some flashing, sometimes horns, some overtaking on the inside etc. It wasn't even all that busy, plenty of opportunity to use the inside lanes, even the 1st lane for quite a few stretches.

          Turns out an unmarked cop car had noticed the log jam, and the undertakings, and so followed for a while, cameras on of course.

          Some time later. Done for dangerous driving, 6 points, hefty fine, the guy was still adamant he was a good driver and that he was making the roads safer by slowing other drivers down! Muppet!

      3. ShadowDragon8685

        Re: In the public domain

        > Just like speeding when you claim you didn't see the limit sign, even if you turned on from a side road and there wasn't one.

        Really? That's... Interesting.

        As I understand it, here leftpondian at least, you are bound by the last speed limit sign you physically passed; so they are absolutely anal about posting speed limit signs just past any intersections, especially those with roads with higher limits, such that you pass a speed limit sign and must reasonably have been 'updated' with the current speed limit.

        Also, a sign that is obscured sufficiently to prevent a reasonable person traveling the road at the previously-signed speed from observing it is in fact a defense in court. Judges take a particularly dim view of speed trap towns that like to move their signs or post their signs where they'll be obscured, or limit part of a road unreasonably, all to generate revenue by 'gotcha!' speeding stops.

        So are you just supposed to psychically know the limit on a road you've just merged with that happens to be lower than the one you've come from, if there's no posted sign, and if you get stung by a cop "ignorance of the limit is no excuse?"

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do not take your work home with you.

    Overwork will result in mistakes and lower productivity.

    1. big_D Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Do not take your work home with you.

      I think he will find a productive position coming his way, splitting rocks for the next 14 years...

      (Yes, I know outdated, mine's the moth eaten one.)

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Re: Do not take your work home with you.

        Breaking rocks in the hot sun?

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Do not take your work home with you.

          Or going up and down "The Hill"

          https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059274/mediaviewer/rm3705644545/

      2. David 132 Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Do not take your work home with you.

        (Yes, I know outdated, mine's the moth eaten one.)

        The one with arrows all over it and a handy spherical cast iron paperweight chained to the ankle, if we're doing outdated prison images, shurely?

  5. iron Silver badge

    I read a piece about this on a supposedly technical site last week. Someone in the comments boldly stated that since they had not signed the Official Secrets Act the game devs are not liable, which is wrong. You don't have to sign the OSA to be bound by it, signing it just means you have read it, understood it and understand its relevance to you.

    Like any other Act of Parliament we are all legally bound to follow the OSA.

    1. Stork Silver badge

      Does OSA apply if you are outside UK?

      Gaijin is Hungary-based, and as Uk does not take part in European arrest warrants anymore they may have to go through the old-fashioned channels.

      For anyone in the US, AFAIK they can republish if it has already been published by others. Perhaps anyone doing that better avoid the UK, which may be one more reason for Gaijin to want to keep out of that. It is not their main business after all.

      1. cageordie

        Re: Does OSA apply if you are outside UK?

        UK and US work closely together. So the UK will not be impressed at anyone leaking US secrets. Post Trump I think it will be a long time before the UK trusts US security though.

      2. Brad Ackerman

        Re: Does OSA apply if you are outside UK?

        In the US it's illegal for someone who has lawful access to classified information to disseminate it in an unauthorised manner. But someone who receives classified information doesn't share the obligation to STFU if they didn't direct the unauthorised dissemination. (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971))

        1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

          Re: Does OSA apply if you are outside UK?

          I feel a certain blonde haired gentleman has shown that to no longer be the case ...

          1. Stork Silver badge

            Re: Does OSA apply if you are outside UK?

            Has he been convicted? I think the US want to extradite him to test that ( official line)

    2. Cederic Silver badge

      Plus of course the entertaining discussion that may follow with a very polite gentleman from Hereford and a few of his friends who are on a boys night out in your town and they're terribly sorry they accidentally blew your door off its hinges but since they're here now perhaps you might be able to help them with an unusually tricky scavenger hunt the trip organiser gave them.

      After all, Budapest is a top stag destination and who can easily tell the difference between a software house and a den of iniquity after a few..

      1. David 132 Silver badge

        Maybe they could reveal the colour of the boathouse door while they're at it?

        1. Dr Scrum Master

          I suppose one should leave this as a Shibboleth...

          actually, two Shibboleth.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Someone needs to go have a cold shower and stop getting themselves all hot and flustered by their very obvious military kink.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You are... not me

      I am not a UK subject, so nope.

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: You are... not me

        If you are in the UK, you are covered by UK laws. If you are outside the UK, then you may be covered by agreements between governments, such as NATO (Hungary is a member) so publishing classified information from one NATO country in another needs something like the USA's freedom of speech and maybe to be a 'political act' to avoid prosecution and conviction.

        This was the case when, several decades ago, the fault that meant the Austin Allegro car could 'shed a wheel' at 'high speed' on the motorway was classified RESTRICTED in the UK, but available to the general public in the USA. This was how, after some fatal 'accidents' it became known that in the USA some UK classified information was freely, and importantly legally, available. After that results of road safety checks on UK cars were, I believe, published in the UK.

        1. Stork Silver badge

          Re: You are... not me

          That was the point of my post a bit further up - if you are not in the UK, your action must also be illegal where you are residing. Even if it is, it will be quite a hassle for UK authorities to get at you and does give unwelcome publicity.

        2. Mog_X

          Re: You are... not me

          I'm surprised - not by the information in your post about classified information, but that an Allegro could reach a high speed....

          1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

            Re: You are... not me

            Well, I did use inverted commas.

        3. Electronics'R'Us
          Facepalm

          Re: You are... not me

          The MOD routinely over-classifies documents.

          True story. One of the bases I was stationed at would stamp the newspapers 'Restricted'.

          Although it is certainly the case that the OSA applies to 'Restricted' (now 'Official'), classifying documents appropriately might also be a welcome thing.

          1. The commentard formerly known as Mister_C

            Re: You are... not me

            That could have been a defence against less-than-sociable members of a mess. Stamping the newspaper "Officers' Mess" would be seen by some as "belongs to any member of the mess", thus free to take away. Stamping the newspaper "Restricted" would mean that removing the paper from the mess becomes an offence rather than just a selfish habit.

            Or maybe the adjudant was a jerk.

  6. DrXym

    Achievement Unlocked!

    "In camera criminal prosecution"

    1. FozzyBear

      Re: Achievement Unlocked!

      Some people will do anything to platinum a game

  7. Potemkine! Silver badge

    tried to win an online argument

    Muahahaha! Online arguments are unwinnable. Ever.

    Sturmovics

    Sturmoviks. Have some respect for these planes FFS!

  8. Sherrie Ludwig
    Coat

    Wasn't there a Sherlock episode (A Scandal in Belgravia) that hinged on an MOD worker divulging classified information to impress somebody (his dominatrix)? Does not speak well for MOD hiring practices, if it becomes a trope in fiction because it happens in real life. Coat because she nicked Sherlock's.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon