Terrorism Act 2000

[Andrew Cormack]

Donald,
Hmmm. We lay readers "role-played" some of the common scenarios we come 
across in CERT work and concluded that the Act's definitions *did* seem to 
classify electronic attacks correctly according to our understanding of 
terrorism or not. Please let me know if I've missed something in the 
following, so should be worried after all?

I read the Act as having logical ANDs between the subsections of 1(1), so 
in an electronic case (which I'm taking as not involving firearms or 
explosives so section 3 doesn't apply), you have to have all three of 
"interference or serious disruption" and "influencing the government or the 
public" and "advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".

So a student hacking computers for "fun" isn't a terrorist, but someone 
breaking into a website to threaten harm to investors in HLS might well be. 
[Interestingly, someone who posts exactly the same message on web space 
they have obtained legitimately *isn't* a terrorist (nothing in section 2 
applies).]

I can't see that using encryption for privacy has any risk of falling into 
these definitions, though perhaps encrypting an MPs hard disk with an 
unknown key might. If, of course, it was done in support of "a political, 
religious or ideological cause". I'm not sure whether the discussions on 
this list fall into any of those :-)

Finally, I was rather concerned to hear the minister on R4, asked whether 
digging up a field of GM crops counted as terrorism under the Act, say 
"that was up to the courts to decide". Surely the government plays such 
scenarios against draft legislation as a test for whether it works? Surely?

Andrew

At 07:51 21/02/01 +0000, you wrote:
 >Below is S:1 of the new Terrorism Act 2000, the whole act can be found at:
 >
 >http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm
 >
 >While I have no problem with most of it S:1(2)(e) includes intereference
 >with an electronic system. There do not appear (and I may be wrong and am
 >happy to be corrected) to be any further definitions or clarifications as
 >to what an electronic system is and what is meant by interference.
 >
 >I perceive that they are thinking of National critical sytems such as
 >power, air traffic control etc, but as usual these days it does not say
 >that. It would appear from the definition that any "interference" with any
 >system is an at of terrorism and as "interference" is not defined, then for
 >example, does encryption count as interference as it prevents "an
 >electronic system" from accessing or reading what would be say plaintext.
 >
 >I realize that the anti terrorist squad are hardly likely to swoop on the
 >student who hacks his university computer or something similar (well I hope
 >not), but the fact remains, that they could if they wanted to. Just another
 >example of bad (well from a citizen's point of view) drafting, in which the
 >state is saying we know best trust us.
 >
 >Oh, I nearly forgot, you can do this anywhere in the world, its not just
 >limited to the UK, that could be tricky to enforce!
 >
 >
 >
 >"1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
 >
 >
 >(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
 >
 >(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to
 >intimidate the public or a
 >section of the public, and
 >
 >(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
 >religious or
 >ideological cause.
 >
 >(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
 >
 >
 >(a) involves serious violence against a person,
 >
 >(b) involves serious damage to property,
 >
 >(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the
 >action,
 >
 >(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a
 >section of the public, or
 >
 >(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an
 >electronic system.
 >
 >(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which
 >involves the use of firearms or
 >explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
 >
 >
 >(4) In this section-
 >
 >
 >(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
 >
 >(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person,
 >or to property,
 >wherever situated,
 >
 >(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a
 >country other than the
 >United Kingdom, and
 >
 >(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part
 >of the United
 >Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
 >
 >(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism
 >includes a reference to
 >action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation."
 >
 >
 >
 >Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
 >Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
 >Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
 >5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
 >Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
 >Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
 >Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted
 >
 >

--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cormack
Head of CERT
UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QS

Phone:  01235 822 302    E-mail: Andrew.Cormack@ukerna.ac.uk
Fax:    01235 822 398