Alan Turing papers on code breaking released by GCHQ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17771962

by colinscape • 14 years ago

40 10 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

excuse-me4• 14 years ago

>A GCHQ mathematician said the fact that the contents had been restricted "shows what a tremendous importance it has in the foundations of our subject".

It probably shows that nobody with the authority to clear them for release understood them and it was safer/easier to just stamp restricted and let somebody else worry about it in another 30years than admit it.

It's pretty much a safe bet that, even within GCHQ, anybody with any seniority in the British civil service will have no technical background.

swordswinger12• 14 years ago

So what you're saying is that in one of the top intelligence organizations in the world, the person who handles document classification status for technical reports just stamps papers willy-nilly?

excuse-me4• 14 years ago

Everything from the office squash league to the canteen menu is automatically classified when it's created.

The degree of classification is by default at LEAST the security level of project you are working. It is possible to create a document that is more secret than the project, although generally not less. Bizarrely it's even possible to create a document that is subsequently classified to a level that you aren't allowed to read it yourself!

After a certain time (generally 30years for UK gov) records are considered for release. Some are kept classified if eg. they will put living people at risk.

But releasing a document always has the potential to cause embarrassment to the civil service or government - while keeping it classified means nobody ever knows.

So there is always a default - if in doubt do nothing/keep it secret.

DanBC• 14 years ago

> It's pretty much a safe bet that, even within GCHQ, anybody with any seniority in the British civil service will have no technical background.

A tricky question to answer. Most of what they do is secret, and people don't talk about the work at all.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to leave people good at the job doing the job and let people good at managing doing the managing.

But look at, for example, mathematician Clifford Cocks who (it's safe to say) is a good mathematician and is in a position of seniority with GCHQ and possibly other research partnerships such as the Heilbronn Institute.

(http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/heilbronn_institute/)

excuse-me4• 14 years ago

> leave people good at the job doing the job and let people good at managing doing the managing.

In my experience of UK military/security service there is a boffins + officers divide attitude all the way up.

Above any level of required knowledge it moves into the Oxbridge/PPE/civil servant mindset - it shouldn't take too much imagination to realise that these people aren't necessarily hired for the brilliance in management.

IsTom• 14 years ago

Did the Brits publicly apologize for what was done to him yet?

winknudge• 14 years ago

Nope. Would you excuse/apologise everyone who was prosecuted under that law or just make a special case for Turing?

I too believe what happened was wrong but if you start apologising for some of the old laws which now seem completely backwards... where does one stop?

oylenshpeegul• 14 years ago

The UK government publicly apologized in 2009. There was an official statement from the Prime Minister. The latest dust-up is over a pardon.

Alan Turing papers on code breaking released by GCHQ

Related Stories