[FYI] (Fwd) FC: U.K. anti-terrorism law imperils hackers, privacy, p

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Sat, 28 Jul 2001 20:51:49 -0400
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To:             	politech@politechbot.com
Subject:        	FC: U.K. anti-terrorism law imperils hackers, privacy, property
Send reply to:  	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.

###



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- 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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

------- End of forwarded message -------