Terrorism Act 2000

[Q G Campbell]

On 21 February on this list Ross Anderson posed the following question:

> In a posting yesterday to the list on the health and social care bill,
> I suggested that if the government succeeds in granting itself
> unlimited access to all computerised personal health information in
> the country, we should have an `opt-out'campaign under which large
> numbers of people would instruct their doctors not to share their
> information with the centre, or put it on a computer at all.
>=20
> Am I a terrorist? [under the Terrorism Act 2000]

He then went on to give an interpretation of the provisions of s.1 to
show that he was! He implied that if he was then most of us probably
were as well!

Fearing an early morning knock on my door I looked for reassurance in
the Explanatory Notes to the Act.

Whatever NHS bureaucrats may assert about his proposed political
campaign, these actions do not appear to meet the interpretation of
"Terrorism" in the Explanatory Notes.

These define terrorism as "...covering actions which might not be
violent in themselves but which can, in a modern society, have a
devastating impact. These could include interfering with the supply of
water or power where life, health or safety may be put at risk."  =20

By that yardstick Ross's campaign would hardly have a "devastating
impact" and is not in the same league as a risk to "health" or "safety".


In fact the NHS database is likely to be far more affected by loss of
information caused by incompetent/incomplete diagnosis or inefficient
medical bureaucracy than by an opt-out campaign!

Ross also cites s.2(e) but the Explanatory Notes says that this "covers
the disrupting of *key computer systems*" [*my emphasis*]. Assuming for
the moment that the NHS database referred to by Ross IS a "key computer
system", the failure to include an episode of treatment on it is
arguably less "disruptive" to the NHS system than the disruption caused
to the DVLC system by my failure to renew the tax on my motor bike
(consequential generation of SORN notices, inspectors being sent out,
etc).

So Ross will not be able to add "International Terrorist" just yet to
his already impressive CV.  :-}

  =20
Quentin
--
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."
    =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Anderson [mailto:Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: 21 February 2001 11:26
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Terrorism Act 2000
>=20
>=20
> David Hansen may be a terrorist, but I'm also an _international_
> terrorist, and the reasons why are perhaps somewhat sobering.
>=20
> In a posting yesterday to the list on the health and social care bill,
> I suggested that if the government succeeds in granting itself
> unlimited access to all computerised personal health information in
> the country, we should have an `opt-out'campaign under which large
> numbers of people would instruct their doctors not to share their
> information with the centre, or put it on a computer at all.
>=20
> Am I a terrorist?
>=20
> > 1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of=20
> action where-
> >
> > (a) the action falls within subsection (2)
> > ...
> > (2) - (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of=20
> the public
> > or a section of the public, or
> >
> >       (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or=20
> seriously to disrupt
> > an electronic system.
>=20
> (e) is certainly satisfied, and the NHS bureaucrats will=20
> argue that (d) is
> too. Now continuing with (1):
>=20
> > (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to
> > intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
>=20
> clearly satisfied - meant to influence the government
>=20
> > (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing=20
> a political,
> > religious or ideological cause.
>=20
> protecting patient privacy seems to be solidly covered here!=20
> It has been
> a political hot potato at various times since 1910, and is seen by NHS
> bureaucrats as being `ideological'.
>=20
> So a UK opt-out campaign against section 67 of the Health and=20
> Social Care
> Bill is terrorism. No doubt whatsoever.
>=20
> But that's not all. I also advise the Icelandic Medical Association on
> their resistance to Roche's database there, and they've organised an
> opt-out campaign to which 10% of the adult population of Iceland have
> subscribed. Now at (4) we find:
>=20
> > (4) In this section-
> >
> > (a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
> > ...
> > (d) "the government" means the government of the United=20
> Kingdom, of a=20
> > Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the=20
> United Kingdom.
>=20
> So offering my professional consulting services to the IMA, in support
> of their campaign to uphold the EU Data Protection directive in their
> country and obstruct a system that has been condemned as contrary to
> EU law by the information and privacy commissioners of every EU
> country - including Elizabeth France - is also clearly terrorism.
>=20
> So now we know. We are all terrorists now!
>=20
> Ross
>=20
> PS: evidence of my terrorist career in the UK is at=20
>=20
> 	<http://archive.coollist.com/showmon.cgi?l=3Dhealth59>;
>=20
> more, plus evidence of terrorism in Iceland, at=20
>=20
> 	<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/#Med>
>=20
> see also
>=20
> 	<http://www.gorjuss.com/medicalprivacy/>
>=20
>=20
>=20