Programmer Faces Terror Charge:

[Jeremy Barker]

David_Biggins@usermgmt.com wrote:

> 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).

Yes, but it works by the defendant simply putting forward what they claim is
"reasonable excuse". Then the prosecution has to prove that the reason given
was not reasonable. That is well established law for offence for which there
is a "reasonable excuse" defence.


> 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".

The "information likely to be useful to a terrorist" offence catches all
kinds of things that people can possess innocently. Because a lot of
innocent everyday things are caught if they have been collected for
terrorist purposes the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is
required before proceedings may commence. That allows someone independent of
the police to ascertain whether there are proper grounds for prosecution and
in particular to assess whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that
the reason for possession is terrorism rather than something less sinister.


> 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.

Indeed it is - in fact it's "on topic" in relation to a discussion about
almost anything.

jb