IP: U.K. anti-terrorism law imperils hackers, privacy, property

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 20:51:49 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>
>
>http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/07/28/2336239&mode=nested
>
>    U.K. Anti-Terrorism Law Imperils Hackers, Privacy
>    posted by cicero on Saturday July 28, @06:34PM
>    from the how-nice-that-hackers-are-covered-too dept.
>
>
>    A U.K. law that took effect this year gives police far-ranging powers
>    to make warrantless arrests, enter buildings without court orders, and
>    punish people for having information that could be useful to
>    terrorists.
>
>    The measure, called the Terrorism Act of 2000, received royal assent
>    in July 2000. It became law in February 2001.
>
>    Parliament, after lengthy debate, defined "terrorism" as any threat to
>    influence any government (U.K. or other) or group "for the purpose of
>    advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." Actions that
>    are punishable include those that threaten or carry out "serious
>    damage to property," endanger public safety, or are are "designed
>    seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic
>    system."
>
>    If you think that covers hackers, well, you're right. And it's no
>    accident.
>
>    A ZDNET article reports that: "Computer hackers could be classed as
>    terrorists under a U.K. law." So does this Register writeup.
>
>    An IDG article in February confirmed that the Home Office plans to
>    prosecute hackers under the Terrorism Act.
>
>    Unfortunately, the reporter never mentioned some of the more
>    disturbing aspects of the law.
>
>    It allows police to randomly stop people on streets, who are then
>    required to give their names (so much for anonymity) or go to prison.
>    Cops can seize any cash that they believe "is intended to be used for
>    the purposes of terrorism," with no court authorization required. Gone
>    is the traditional burden of proof: Judges are required to assume that
>    contraband in the same building as the accused is owned by the accused
>    "unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises
>    or that he had no control over it."
>
>    Perhaps the most fascinating section restricts even owning information
>    that could be useful to "a person committing or preparing an act of
>    terrorism." If hackers are terrorists, better delete your copy of Back
>    Orifice and bugtraq archives now.
>
>    This Draconian law can be explained by the uneasy situation in
>    Northern Ireland, which has been marked by recent car bombs and
>    grenade attacks reportedly performed by IRA factions. (The law is,
>    according to the Home Office, designed to be one uniform measure "to
>    replace the existing, separate pieces of temporary legislation for
>    Northern Ireland and Great Britain.")
>
>    Americans, be warned. Congress is spending more and more time talking
>    about bio-chem, Internet, and nuclear attacks. Soon you could be
>    facing the same invasions of privacy and property.
>
>    At least the spirit of John Locke isn't completely dead in his native
>    land.
>
>    "The legislation which gives the authorities extra powers should have
>    to be renewed by parliament regularly rather than being permanent
>    legislation. The definition of terrorism is also far too wide, in
>    spite of significant efforts by Liberal Democrats and others in
>    parliament to improve it," Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home
>    Secretary, said in a statement. The Liberal Democrats are the third
>    largest political party.
>
>    In a discussion on a U.K. mailing list, Ross Anderson of Cambridge
>    University said that the law was written so broadly that it could
>    imperil his computer security work. Predicted Anderson: "So now we
>    know. We are all terrorists now!"
>
>    Another list member chimed in: "So interfering with an electronic
>    system in order to advance a political cause seems to me to be
>    covered, or at least it could be argued that it was covered. Is
>    defacing a website 'terrorism?' Or distributing a stupid word macro by
>    email? It looks as if, had the 'love bug' mail message contain a
>    political or religious slogan it could be defined as terrorism by this
>    standard.
>
>    Below are some excerpts from the law. You can find the complete text
>    at www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm, and a
>    protest site at http://www.blagged.freeserve.co.uk/ta2000/index.htm.
>
>      _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>EXCERPTS FROM TERRORISM ACT:
>
>
>Arrest of suspected terrorists power of entry.  81. A constable may
>enter and search any premises if he reasonably suspects that a
>terrorist, within the meaning of section 40(1)(b), is to be found
>there.
>
>
>Terrorist information.  103. - (1) A person commits an offence if- (a)
>he collects, makes a record of, publishes, communicates or attempts to
>elicit information about a person to whom this section applies which
>is 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.
>
>
>Arrest without warrant.  41. - (1) A constable may arrest without a
>warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.  (2)
>Where a person is arrested under this section the provisions of
>Schedule 8 (detention treatment, review and extension) shall apply.
>
>
>Search of persons.     43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a
>person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover
>whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute
>evidence that he is a terrorist.
>
>
>Power to stop and search
>Authorisations.     44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection
>authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at
>a place specified in the authorisation and to search [vehicle, driver,
>passenger, etc.]
>
>
>Possession onus of proof.  77. - (1) This section applies to a trial
>on indictment for a scheduled offence where the accused is charged
>with possessing an article in such circumstances as to constitute an
>offence under any of the enactments listed in subsection (3).
>       (2) If it is proved that the article-
>   (a) was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or
>   (b) was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he
>habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,
>the court may assume that the accused possessed (and, if relevant,
>knowingly possessed) the article, unless he proves that he did not
>know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control
>over it.
>
>
>Explosives inspectors.  85. - (1) An explosives inspector may enter
>and search any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether any
>explosive is unlawfully there.  (2) The power under subsection (1) may
>not be exercised in relation to a dwelling.
>
>
>Power of entry.  90. - (1) An officer may enter any premises if he
>considers it necessary in the course of operations for the
>preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order.
>
>
>Penalties.  22. A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 15
>to 18 shall be liable- (a) on conviction on indictment, to
>imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, to a fine or to both,
>or (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
>six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
>
>
>Seizure and detention.  25. - (1) An authorised officer may seize and
>detain any cash to which this section applies if he has reasonable
>grounds for suspecting that- (a) it is intended to be used for the
>purposes of terrorism,
>
>
>Weapons training.  54. - (1) A person commits an offence if he
>provides instruction or training in the making or use of-
>   (a) firearms,
>   (b) explosives, or
>   (c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
>It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
>section in relation to instruction or training to prove that his
>action or involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting,
>preparing for or participating in terrorism.
>
>
>Collection of information.     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.
>
>
>Power to stop and question. 89. - (1) An officer may stop a person
>for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-
>(a) his identity and movements;
>(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent
>incident endangering life;
>(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent
>explosion or incident.
>(2) A person commits an offence if he-
>(a) fails to stop when required to do so under this section,
>(b) refuses to answer a question addressed to him under this section, or
>(c) fails to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability a
>question addressed to him under this section.
>(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable
>on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard
>scale.
>(4) In this section "officer" means-
>(a) a member of Her Majesty's forces on duty, or
>(b) a constable.
>
>###



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/