Programmer Faces Terror Charge:

[David_Biggins@usermgmt.com]

Roger Hayter wrote:

> Ideally, in a police state, at least 2 or 3 things people do 
> every day 
> should be made into crimes, so you can arrest who you like, when you 
> like, and blackmail or imprison them.  "Possessing 
> information likely to 
> be useful to a terrorist" sounds so much more liberal and convincing 
> than "possessing information we would prefer to be kept 
> secret":  and, 
> indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if  the charge could be made to stick 
> against someone who merely collected names and addresses 
> already in the 
> public domain.  On the information available, it is a bit off-topic 
> though!
> 

I'm not so sure.   

The whole act of course makes use of "Terrorrism" as defined in Section
1.   Section 1 defines three criteria for terrorism,  but fails to make
it at all explicit whether these are "and" or "or".   It looks to me as
if it's probably "or".

1 (1)(a) merely references Subsection 2.  Subsection 2(e) creates a
definition of terrorism that "is designed seriously to interfere with or
seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

Section 58:

58. - (1) A person commits an offence if- 
  
  (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to
be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or 
  (b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that
kind. 
      (2) In this section "record" includes a photographic or electronic
record.
  
      (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under
this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or
possession. 

So all crypto researchers, and indeed anyone working on computer
security or even any relatively low-level networking studies is pretty
well guaranteed to be holding and collecting such information.

Now note that section 58 of the act is not worded in such a way as to
require that someone collecting the information be shown to have any
intent to commit an act of terrorism or to be passing information on to
someone who is.  These are covered by separate sections.   

Yes, it is a  defence to PROVE that you have a reasonable excuse - that
process may however be dragged out by TPTB for some time if they wish..
The act is one of those wonderful enabling acts that allow the SoS to
decide how long it has to be before procedings start  (Section 72 - Time
limits for preliminary procedings).

Given the relatively broad phrasing of the act,  and the
long-acknowleged inclusion of crypto as a munition,  it is arguable that
all those of us studying crypto and crypto policy to any extent are
likely to risk falling into the category of  "Possessing information
likely to be useful to a terrorist".

And those of us who do so outside the confines of a university or major
corporate possibly carry an even greater possibility of such an act
being abused.

So I'm sorry Roger, but I increasingly see it as being very on topic to
the subject of UK crypto policy.

## dave ##