On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:37:24 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:

The only area where there is any additional notification involved is for
persons involved in Security and Intelligence, where the person concerned
must be served with a notice informing them that an additional section of
the 1989 Act applies to them.

AFAIR the offences concerning retention of documents are very much
dependant on the appropriate bits of paper having been signed for an
offence to be proved. The 1989 Act also applies to "a person notified
that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection" [s.1(1)(b)],
not just "a member of the security and intelligence
services"[s.1(1)(a)].

Perhaps you should read all of S.1, it relates entirely to "security or
intelligence" which "means the work of, or in support of, the security and
intelligence services or any part of them, and references to information
relating to security or intelligence include references to information held
or transmitted by those services or by persons in support of, or of any part
of, them".

So a notice under S.1. 1(b) relates entirely to persons involved in security
or intelligence; as I said in my previous post.

A "person notified..." is not necessarily intentionally involved (or
employed) in security or intelligence.

As far as documents are concerned, again there is not mention in the Acts
about signing anything, just their unauthorised retention or disposal. There
may me a local logging system in place to control the movement of some
documents, but this is normally only for Confidential and above. Restricted
documents in general are not signed for, but are still covered by the Act,
as are many documents that carry no protective marking at all.

The "signing" generally referred to is that done when entering or
leaving the affected occupations not on other odd occasions.