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

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 17:51:49 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Fed hijinks: IRS sabotage, FBI "conference" as cover for party"

    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.
    
    ###
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jul 28 2001 - 17:56:14 PDT