Our second set of comments on the evil Terrorism Bill 2005
We will have to move this weblog overseas and possibly go "underground" like other dissidents, if this Bill becomes law
-
and
2 Dissemination of terrorist publications
and
3 Application of ss. 1 and 2 to internet activity etc.
place United Kingdom based Internet businesses and customers of those businesses with web blogs or discussion forums, or email lists or peer to peer networks, or any other form of Internet Publishing, under an intolerable burden of bureaucratic red tape.
They are threatened with up to Seven years in prison and or a fine not just for actually "indirectly encouraging terrorism" or publishing "anything which might be useful to terrorists" or disseminating a so called "terrorist publication".
Under Subsection 3, a publisher or distributor is deemed to approve or sympathise with such a "terrorist publication" if they do not respond to a censorship notice within 2 days !
The Home Office have obviously got no commercial experience whatsover, and their own bureaucratic responses to written correspondence is almost never within 2 days either !
This stupid 2 day period flies in the face of other legislation e.g. Financial investigations, already on the statute books which acknowledge the existence of Bank Holidays, and Office Hours.
Why should someone be criminalised merely because of a Bank Holiday ?
What is the rush to censor a website etc. which nobody may actually be reading, in only 2 days ?
Nobody has shown how long it takes someone to be influenced or converted into a terrorist by means of a website or paper publication.
There is no clear definition in the Bill of what exactly contitutes "indirect encouragement" or what exactly a "terrorist publication" comprises of , in whole or in part.
Such a censorship notice is not based on a Court order, but merely on the opinion of a Police Constable, and cannot therefore be applied fairly throughout the country (no one Police Constable has authority throughout the United Kingdom)
Why should one have to "prove" one's "innocence" or lack of "support" for terrorism to a police constable ? It should be up to the prosecution in a Court to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt.
It is certain that some extremists will claim that the Koran or the Bible are justifications for terrorism.
Such decisions should never be made by arbitrary, unaccountable Police Constables !
These clauses add to the bureaucratic red tape burden on businesses, especially internet business, both large and small.
We will have to move this weblog overseas and possibly go "underground" like other dissidents, if this Bill becomes law
It is impossible to say that our discussions of terrorism policy , intelligence agencies and technology, whilst hopefully useful and interesting to the law abiding public, are not also of indirect , partial use to terrorists, something which could attract a penalty of 7 years in prison.
- Make it impossible to serve a legal notice on any real terrorists e.g. those hiding abroad
4 Giving of notices under s. 3 makes the entirely false assumption that, in most cases, the Directors or Legal Secretary of a company are in day to day control of web servers or email servers etc.
Almost invariably they are not in charge of such systems.
The Home Office should instead, be building on the existing relationships between the telecomms and internet industries and the Police, developed over the years under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and section 29 of the Data Protection Act, for which there are established mechnisms for dealing with requests for emails or communications data logfiles etc.
These make use of the mechnism of Single Points of Contact, staffed by trained and experienced personnel, who will not waste the time of industry (and of the Police) with frivolous and repetitive requests by individual inexperienced Police Constables. This legislation promises to disrupt such working arrangements, by granting the power to issue censorship notices to any Police Constable, regardless of rank.
Why does the Home Office think that it will be easy or even possible to serve a Notice on a foreign terrorist sympathiser or organisation ?
Suppose their "last known address" of Osam bin Laden etc. is somewhere like the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, or the Tribal Areas on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan ? Who exactly do they envisage will be serving such a legal notice, with the attendant risk of kidnap, torture and murder ?
Instead of limiting the censorship / takedown notices to Company Directors or Company Secretaries, via recorded delivery post or in person, the Home Office should, in the 21st Century be in contact with the actual technical staff who have real-time control of the webservers etc. via the use of Digitally Signed emails or other messages etc., as permitted under the existing Electronic Communications Act 2000 which is already on the statute books.
The only people that will actually be served such Notices, will be otherwise innocent British businessmen. It is no comfort whatsoever to have to argue in Court that you were ignorant of the terrorist nature of a website or blog posting or discussion forum entry.Being served such a notice on the whim of a Police Constable, possibly as a result of an online argument or a "Joe job" attack on the reputation of the operators of a website or to disrupt their activities by tricking their Internet Service Provider into banning them.
Why is there any need for regulation in this area at all ? The existing Acceptable Use Policies of all UK website operators, for example, already means that there are no public "terrorist websites" operating from servers within the United Kingdom.
If the intention is to somehow stop impressionable people from falling into the clutches of terrorist recruiters, then this is already as effective as it will ever be.
If people are already moving within extremist circles, then private websites, especially those hosted abroad, are beyond the competence and legal jurisdiction of the Home Office or the UK Police.
Any attempts to "disrupt" these systems, such as those hosted in, say China, could easily be interpreted as "cyber war", which would damage the UK economy far more than the slight, temporary effect that "disruption" of such sites would have on the terrorists. It would also remove the opportunity for covert surveillance of such "honeypots" for intelligence gatheriing purposes.
- Why is there no Exemption for legitimate UK Military training ?
There have been Irish terrorists in the past who have specifically joined the British Armed forces in order to get weapons training.
The wording of the clauses
6 Training for terrorism
and 8 Attendance at a place used for terrorist trainingwiden the already over powerful and general Terrorism Act 2000 clauses on weapons training.
Who exactly decides what constitutes "a place used for terrorist training" ?
The list of skills mentioned in the Bill are not exclusively useful only to terrorists.
These "catch all" clauses potentially criminalise British Military training, at home, and abroad, especially as the "terrorist training" does not have to be specifically intended for terrorism, but only in subject areas which might possibly be of some use to a terrorist somewhere in the world, either now or in the future. i.e. the Home Office are abusing the word "any" yet again.
Why should UK Military Personnel either in the UK or abroad ever have to fall foul of this law, remembering that this week's "freedom fighters" or "friendly militia forces" or "local police forces" can easily become "terrorists" in the future, as has happened very recently in the British controlled area in Southern Iraq ?
These clauses are so broad , that even a Driving School which teaches a future car bomber how to drive a vehicle could fall foul of them.
e.g.
"that instruction or training is provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences"The security bureaucracies have already subjected Aviation Training and Diving Schools to scrutiny, investigation and suspicion.
Will Universities or Polytechnics offering any engineering, chemistry , biochemistry, nuclear physics, microbiology or information technology courses also fall foul of these "terrorist training" powers ?
Remember that the definition of a "noxious substance" literally encompasses everything and anything either man made or natural, in the entire universe (another example of the Home Office granting itself infinite powers, and the opportunity for inconsistent, illogical and arbitrary arrest and prosecutions, on the whim of bureaucrats.)
Where are the safeguards for legitimate businesses and academic institutions ?
There should be a defence of "being unaware that the training was going to be used by evil people", similar to those provided by the "common carrier" status enjoyed by the telecommunications industries, and which apply even in this Bill to the dissemination of terrorist publications.
Why should legitimate businesses or academic institutions or the British Military be criminalised and run the the risk of 7 years in prison, for things which are beyond their day to day control ?
Part 1 of our comments on the terrorism Bill 2005
Part 3 of our comments on the terrorism Bill 2005
Hi webmaster, commenters and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need!b Keep 'em coming... you all do such a great job at such Concepts... can't tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!