Ignoring that reality isn’t bold. It’s reckless.
Why this matters
Current or former employment in government, defence, intelligence, policing, or allied fields often comes with obligations that outlast the job itself. These may include:
- Confidentiality clauses
- Non-disclosure agreements
- Secrecy provisions under statute
- Duty of fidelity or loyalty
- Pre-publication review requirements
- Restrictions on use or profit from privileged access or insider knowledge
These obligations are not hypothetical. They are legally enforceable.
BBC News
Publishing material that breaches them can expose authors (and their publishers) to:
- Disciplinary action
- Divil liability
- Doss of security clearance
- Reputational harm
- Legal injunctions against distribution
- Forfeiture of royalties, intellectual rights and associated profits (such as from speaking fees)
- Criminal prosecution and imprisonment
These outcome are foreseeable and are not compatible with responsible publishing.
“It’s anonymised” is not a safeguard
A common misconception is that removing names, dates, or locations resolves the problem. It often doesn’t.
Contextual clues, operational detail, sequencing, or perspective can still:
- Reveal protected information
- Enable reconstruction of sensitive systems
- Compromise people or communities
- Signal insider access that should not be disclosed
If you know something because of your role, that could be problematic — even if you believe you’ve disguised it.
Permission is not optional
chris mace
If you are currently or formerly employed in a role that required secrecy, confidentiality, or formal clearance, you are responsible for ensuring that what you publish is permitted. Most roles working in national security contexts or adjacent areas are subject to these employment conditions.
In practical terms this may mean:
- Obtaining written consent from your current or former employer prior to manuscript finalisation
- Completing a formal pre-publication review with your current or former employer
- Excluding or redacting certain material entirely at their request
- Reframing analysis so it relies only on public, citable sources
Before we proceed to contract, we will ask you to confirm — and provide evidence — that you have obtained any required permissions or clearances from a current or former employer, or that permission has been formally sought and no approval is required. We cannot agree to publish your work without this information.
Responsibility sits with the author
Publishers cannot retrospectively fix breaches of employment obligations.
Editors (nor lawyers) cannot certify that material is lawful to disclose.
Disclaimers do not transfer liability.
Authors are the only ones who fully understand:
- Where their knowledge came from
- What access they had
- What employment conditions they are bound by
That’s why responsibility sits upstream — with them.
Our position
Nat Sec Press supports practitioners and researchers who want to publish thoughtful, evidence-based, and relevant work. We also take our - and your - legal and ethical responsibilities seriously.
If your work:
- Draws on experience gained under employment-related obligations, and
- Those obligations restrict disclosure,
Then permission, clearance, or exclusion of material is a prerequisite — not a courtesy.
If in doubt, pause.
If uncertain, seek advice.
If permission is required, obtain it.
Publishing responsibly protects you, your former colleagues, affected communities, those still working in the field, and the integrity of the work itself.
