In UK, First "Anarchist's Cookbook" Downloaders' Convictions 418
analysethis writes "In the UK last month the author/compiler of the well-known-in-Internet-circles 'terrorist handbook' pleaded guilty to seven counts of collecting information that could have been used to prepare or commit acts of terrorism, with a maximum jail term of 10 years. Today the first people caught with downloaded copies have been put behind bars — a white-supremacist father and son pairing getting 10 and two years respectively, convicted of three counts of possessing material useful for acts of terror. How many will be emptying their recycle bins after this conviction? As of writing, the book is still freely available on Amazon.com to buy." Note: it seems that there's some overlapping nomenclature at play. Terrance Brown, the man who pleaded guilty to terror charges last month, is said to have been distributing a CD set including among other things extracts from Al-Qaeda manuals. His "cookbook" differs then from William Powell's 1971 book by a similar title, though (confusingly enough) the linked Wikipedia article implies that the father-and-son pair arrested possessed a copy of the Powell book as well; its text may well have been among the materials that Brown distributed.
Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...could have been the fucking chemical weapons.
I have the feeling the conviction has more to do with a bunch of white supremacists holding large quantities of ricin, than that actual act of learning how to make it.
Re:"white-supremacist father and son" (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider that a sign of one of the strengths of Americas freedom of speech. That a group can say something politically and socially unpopular but still have a right to have and hold that message.
Please correct me if that is wrong or has changed.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary:" first people caught with downloaded copies have been put behind bars" TFA: "White supremacist who manufactured ricin jailed" Big difference. Now, we can focus on the charges against the author/writer, but make it a bit more clear please. Its retarded to arrest someone over information, but its the UK, so what can you expect. Who draws the line, do they arrest authors of high level physicist books about nuclear devices? UK is quickly revealing the police state mentality they have been hiding for so long, I guess next time I'm on that side of the pond I'll be sure to avoid it.
Re:Oh no am I in trouble. (Score:1, Insightful)
well you never did anything with that knowledge...
Welcome to the wonderful world of thought crimes. Terrorism is one of the excuses to introduce them.
Ban Bibles not Bombs (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting that the authorities don't ban various religious texts and holy bibles that are used to promote terrorism and hatred.
In reality books don't kill people, and guns don't (even) kill people. Religious and authoritarian ideologies are used to kill people. But I don't expect the Authorities to ban authoritarian and bigoted hate-filled religious texts which help encourage violence. It's another great hypocrisy.
(And I'll emphasize that I don't WANT religious texts banned, I'm just emphasizing and pointing out the logical fallacies tend to develop around Leadership and Law Enforcement).
Re:Bad summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no am I in trouble. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like most overreaching laws, the first few people convicted will obviously deserve it, and could've been convicted for a proper crime if people were prepared to do their jobs properly. Serious misuse will happen when we've all accepted the necessity of the new law.
Is there a list of what we can't read? Are there especially accurate works of fiction we can be arrested for reading? Perhaps the law will be used against people collecting information about unpleasant things our government does (remember, taking photos of police is already illegal, if the photos could be "useful for terrorism")?
For example, there are people that try to discover the routes taken by trucks transporting nuclear materials in the UK, in order to inform communities along the routes and peacefully protest. I guess they are terrorists now.
Re:Oh no am I in trouble. (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowledge in the hands of those that are being ruled has always been a threat to those that are in power. Knowledge has always been the primary tool of revolutions, not a single revolution in the history of mankind has been led by uneducated people. And the primary tool of oppression has been withdrawal of information and knowledge. With a growing resentment against the ruling group, their paranoia grows, to the point that they see anyone with knowledge and information as a threat to their power.
For reference, see Pol Pot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"white-supremacist father and son" (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but by allowing them to express their views openly we can confront them with the facts instead of letting them fester underground.
In theory yes, but as we see on slashdot, ignorant people with incorrect facts are often celebrated by the community with up-modding, while those who try to counter with facts and logic are down-modded.
It works similarly outside of slashdot, in politics and society in general, the person with the loudest voice is often the victor, despite the faults in their argument.
Chemistry teaching in Britain (Score:4, Insightful)
Every highschool student taking a chemistry course
It seems to be almost impossible to take a pure chem. course these days. What chemistry there is, is taught in such a watered down manner that it's almost an abstract philosophy class - mixed in with "vinegar and baking powder" level experiments, all done behind a safety screen with full protective gear. I doubt there are many children today who could even tell you what H2SO4 smells like.
Comparing the Chemistry O-level I took a few decades ago with the BBC's example Chemistry GCSE (on their website) almost makes you want to cry. These days it contains questions like "what is the most environmentally appropriate use for a limestone quarry, that's been mined out?"
However nowadyas our wonderful law enfarcement officers automitcally assume that chemistry only means either drugs or bombs, it's hardly surprising it's been demonised
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
convicted of three counts of possessing material useful for acts of terror
Can sombody explain why this is illegal? Every highschool student taking a chemistry course 'possesses material useful for acts of terror'. The fact that somebody owns something that COULD be used for some illegal activity doesn't make that person a criminal. Else, everybody would be in prison. Have you ever used a knife? A car? A computer? Thought so.
The conviction in this case was almost certainly (although I can't find confirmation) under section 57 or 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. These provide, respectively, that a person is guilty of an offence if he:
- "possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism."
- "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 [...] possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."
A legitimate reason to own the information is a defence to both of these charges - so if you're studying chemistry, for example, and your research involves making explosives you aren't guilty under this act. To make it clear what we're talking about, this is the same formulation as is used for knife crime in the UK - you can carry any knife you want as long as you actually need it, but you can't just carry a knife around because you want to. The fact that most people aren't even aware that there is a legal question operating when they carry their gardening tools illustrates the fact that the distinction works quite well.
Since British law is defined largely by judicial precedent it is important to bear in mind that this act was based on the provisions of the Criminal Justice act 1994; the effect of this is to mean that the decision in Rowe (2007) is likely to be binding, i.e. that if the defendant introduces evidence of a non-terrorist motive it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this defence is not valid.
Note also KvR (2008) where it was held that only a document:
- Providing practical assistance in the commission of terrorist offences, and
- That was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or perpetration of an act of terrorism
will lead to a conviction.
The effect of these precedents is that this law allows the conviction of people who deliberately gather information to aid in the commission of terrorist attacks - it does not make mere possession of the information a crime, since intent is also important. It seems to me entirely reasonable that people who abet terrorists should be guilty of an offence.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely for something like this, it's not even the case that you'd need instructions. A quick hit on Wikipedia tells me that Ricin occurs in Castor beans and the pulp of about eight beans contains enough to kill an adult human. Well I thought ricin came from rice (don't know why), but once you've crossed that bit of ignorance, it surely can't be that hard to derive ricin, can it? Buy castor beans, pulp them up and try a few experiments at getting a solution out of them. You can test it on mice bought from any old pet store. (I wouldn't, I'm vegetarian, but I'm presuming some terrorists have fewer reservations about animal testing). That's assuming that the information isn't already out there. I quick search finds that the process for extracting ricin is actually FILED AT THE US PTO [google.com]. It's a matter of public record! Hillarious!
I think every other student has a copy of the Anarchist cookbook. Big deal. Terrorist used to mean someone that scared people to get their ends from the government. These days "terrorist" means someone used by the government to scare you with.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What? How??
If he already is in possession of he obviously needed a manual to create it in the first place. Why is the intent more clearly estables when you find that manual?
wtf kind of logic is that?
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to hide; nothing to fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Intelligence and individuality are threatening to the authorities. There's a reason the intellectuals and truth-tellers are among the first to be executed in a fascist state.
So it sounds like you really don't have anything to fear. Except being swept away along with the troglodytes.
-FL
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And you have laws and rules that people in the UK would chafe under. You're not allowed to say "fuck" on TV, or purchase alcohol under 21, or gamble on the internet for example.
Re:Useful to commit acts of terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the Anarchist's Cookbook. Rife with inaccuracies and dangerous, or so my chemist friends tell me.
It has been years since I read it, I downloaded it with a 14.4 Modem the last time I saw it. At the same time I was taking Chemistry in College. We had one whole class devoted to Nitroglycerin, and the 3 of 4 unstable variants. I knew from class exactly how to synthesize nitroglycerin. And, after that class was over, I realized I have absolutely no desire to *EVER* try to make it. I remember my chem prof saying (as someone who was against hyperbole) "this stuff will blow up if you look at it funny", and "what are you going to do with it if you make some? Pour it down the sink?"
I then read the Anarchist's cookbook, and I remember the instructions of keeping the chemicals in an ice bath, and constantly stirring them... by hand...
As I said, it was a long time ago, but reading the directions for hand-stirring nitroglycerin, and trying to keep the temperature low with a thermometer i remember thinking that the book was designed to blow someone up who tried to follow the directions.
Re:"white-supremacist father and son" (Score:3, Insightful)
So you openly propose oppression and suppression of free speech is a good thing. Free speech is good 'in theory' but not in practice.
No. Where did I ever say that? My point was simply that it doesn't always work that way. I never said I opposed freedom of speech, just that it doesn't always work for the best. But it's still better than not allowing freedom of speech.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:2, Insightful)
You boys could really do with reading up on UK law, mere possession of these guides is now a criminal offence, although I'm not sure if it's a strict liability offence or not.
Yeah, we're fucked
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Convicting someone for possessing any book or source of information is a thoughtcrime law. There are any number of reasons one could possess a "terrorist manual". One could simply be curious as to what a "terrorist manual" might look like. One might want to look at why the terrorists are doing what they are doing, and what their common tactics are. One might want to become a terrorist. One might be very interested in working in counterterrorism law enforcement, but not have the resources to go to school for it yet or still be in the "general education" parts. One might simply want to inform oneself about a major issue in the world today from a primary source. Only one of those is a problematic motive.
Now, of course, once you start actually making weapons, that's quite a different story. So, "thought crime" may not apply well in this specific case. But if you can be arrested just for possession of the book, without possession of anything it tells you how to make, then yes, that is an arrest for thought crime. We have the right to read and be informed, and to know things. Even "bad" things. We just don't have the right to do bad things that harm others.
Yah (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it is because in Europe we think of the holocaust, the killing of millions of people to take their property as a bad thing. Americans think of it has "how the west was won". Really, the only difference between Hitler and the US was that Hitler went east for Lebensraum.
Oh and free speech in the United States? Check the McCarthy trials. Yeah, cheer up US, you can say that all other races should be killed, but not that wealth should be distributed evenly.
I guess it is just about what you fear most. Taxes or the Holocaust.
Re:"white-supremacist father and son" (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is the point (Score:3, Insightful)
People do remember the Nazi's. It is all very well to talk about free speech, until you see what free speech can lead to.
Americans LOVE to talk about free speech, but oddly enough none of them seem to remember the McCarthy trials or indeed the dixy chicks. Free speech? No, just a different set of rules of what you can't say.
It has been proven recently in South Africa and Rwanda that free speech can all to easily lead to horrific things. SA has had race riots... well riots... the race is all black, incited by radio broadcasts. Same as what started the slaughter in Rwanda.
Free speech? To parody Islam? Doesn't seem to exist and a lot of freedom advocates want people to self censor themselves to avoid upsetting things. Free speech is very hard. True free speech is impossible. It would require ANY and ALL speech and publication of images and ideas which are not obviously illegal in another way to be not just allowed or even tolerated but ENABLED. Think about this, if I am free to say X but have no means of publishing it, it would STILL be censorship. Everyone with a printing press could simply limit my free speech, so at least some presses would have to be publicly owned and be required to print ANYTHING ANYBODY wants. Good luck with that.
Free speech is also more then just not being arrested for saying something, it also means the rest of society can't act against you. Like with the dixie chicks. Free speech as you long as you say what we want you to say or we will make your life impossible? No.
Really, kid, stop thinking about free speech in such simple terms. Be pro-free speech all you want, but do it with a solid understanding of the enormous so far unsolved problems this will bring. Meanwhile the rest of the world has learned to accept that freedom only exist up to a certain point. usually when you want to end other peoples freedom.
Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
And this, children, is why we don't share our reading lists and other personal information on sites like Facebook. It's also why we should be wary of other people keeping track of everything we read, whether it's over the web or on devices like Kindle.
Re:Yah (Score:4, Insightful)
Check the McCarthy trials.
Sorry, I can't find any information on the "McCarthy trials", care to tell me what you are talking about?
Were you perhaps referring to the McCarthy Hearings? Which ended up having far more negative consequences for Joseph McCarthy than for those on the receiving side.
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that whether or not he sympathised with the terrorists is irrelevant; he deliberately collated and sold information to be used in the preparation of terrorist acts.
To rather immodestly quote from myself, the test is whether or not he provided information that:
- Would provide practical assistance in the commission of terrorist offences
- Was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or perpetration of an act of terrorism
It appears that he was deliberately writing and selling bomb-making information to terrorists, and whatever his sympathies were this definitely fills both criteria.
Re:Absolutely ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that concerned me about all of this stuff is the Ricin that was allegedly produced - charge people with that, but but having information that is freely available everywhere? That's thoughtcrime and it's bullshit
Bullshit, much like the summary. It is not illegal to have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook in the UK, despite what timothy would like you to believe. Not now, not in the past, and (probably) not ever. What *is* illegal is distributing copies, telling people to make things from those and use them to blow up or poison people, and making poisons from information found on the Internet. In other words, if you have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook that is not in itself illegal (although it might make the police want to find out a bit more about you). If you have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook and a jam-jar full of ricin, a sack of castor beans and the chemicals required to efficiently extract more ricin from the remaining beans (google it, if you're interested) then there's a good chance that you *are* committing a crime.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons I am so happy we have changed government and the new guys are planning a "mass repeal" bill to restore civil liberties.
Of course I do not support terrorism and I want to see those who would murder others stopped. But the fear-driven Labour government went way beyond that, moving us into a world where censorship and thoughtcrime seem to be significant parts of our legal system. There comes a point where I would rather take my chances with the bad guys than see our basic freedoms and way of life eroded any further.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That you can come up with ludicrously twisted scenarios doesn't mean anything. An individual case is judged on the evidence available for that case. If there's sufficient evidence for a reasonable man to be convinced that a crime has occurred, as described in the relevant act, then he will be convicted. If there isn't enough evidence, then he won't be.
And remember that that reasonable man is judging based on everything that is heard in court, not the few paragraphs of a report on a newspaper's website.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were in the UK I'd start downloading and distributing the Anarchist Handbook via bittorrent just to challenge this ridiculous law.
Any good patriot should be willing to spend time in jail to protect the Nature-given right of free speech. It's your mouth. Nobody has a right to muzzle it (although they do have the right to remove you from their private property). The government was created by the People to protect individual rights, not to take them away. Any government which stops acting as a servant, and becomes a master, needs to be altered or abolished.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
your whole argument about intent seems arse backwards.
If I posses a manual written by Stallman which explains how to use GCC and also advocates writing open source software it does not show I have an intent to create open source software.
Not even a little.
Not the slightest bit.
It might convince a brain dead judge that I was intending to code open source software but all I'd be interested in is using the book as a manual, not a guide to life.
If I posses a manual written by Ossama which explains how to create bombs and also talk at length about what he thinks they should be used for that does not mean I have any interest in his opinions on what they should be used for.
Not the slightest bit.
It might convince a brain dead judge but all I'd be interested in is using the book as a manual, not a guide to life.
Now should I have an actual intent to blow up gay bars,train stations or toaster factories(fuck knows) but if I'm just looking to make the bombs I'd grab any text which explained how.
Now of course if I have a shelf full of books on how open source is great which are not mauals that might make for half decent proof of intent.
If I have a shelf full of books about how certain terrorists are totally jusified, how their cause is great etc etc which are not mauals that might make for half decent proof of intent after the bombs are found.
The manual itself says nothing, nothing at all other than you want to make bombs for *something*.
examples chosen to make sense to people on slashdot.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have a bit of a mental block on this score:
People aren't arguing that this isn't a british law.
They're arguing that it's a batshit insane, incoherent, crazy, nutjob law dreamed up by braindead politicians with no respect for civil liberties.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference being of course that the manual by Stallman isn't illegal to possess. A closer analogy might be the possession of child porn. Possession of child porn doesn't necessarily prove intent to commit abuse of children. But society deems both abuse of children and terrorism to be such undesirable activities that these related materials have been banned because there's a tendancy of the materials to encourage the actions.
The balance to be struck here:
1) The desire of some individuals to look at sexual pictures of children or instructions for making things that kill people.
2) The desire of other people that we should take bold steps to discourage child abuse and killing people.
As societies we generally consider the second desire weighs a lot more heavily than the first.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorist used to mean someone that scared people to get their ends from the government. These days "terrorist" means someone used by the government to scare you with.
+$\infty$
Best quote ever.
Re:Yah (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the past of Europe other than Hitler is just so peaceful.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not filled with happy thoughts that everything will all get put right just like that. I suspect it would take a written constitution and a lot of case law in a constitutional court to really fix the damage done by successive governments operating under a climate of fear that they themselves have helped to perpetuate. But I would be happy to see things at least start moving in the right direction again, and I am optimistic that with the increased influence of the Lib Dems we will see more real improvement than we otherwise might have.
Re:"white-supremacist father and son" (Score:3, Insightful)
Communist, I realise that years of brainwashing by right-wing politicians have made this confusing but there's a really big fucking difference between communism, fascism, capitalism, and socialism.
It's especially important because if you live in a first world country you live in a socialist country.
They weren't jailed for possessing knowledge (Score:3, Insightful)
the father made some ricin.
Re:If you want to protect your home from a burglar (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even CGI generated child pornography is illegal. No actual child involved in any way.
Which again is utterly insane and based on nothing more than the opinions of moralizing bigots.
Nobody should be able to turn themselves into criminal while sitting alone in a sealed room with nothing more than a biro and a sheet of paper.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
inventive ways to create "pre-crime" is fantastic isn't it.
why punish people for harm they do when you can punish them in advance for crimes you think they might one day do!
bonus points if you can lock up people for being creepy as well since nobody likes creepy people.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that when Winston Smith was convicted for keeping a journal, that was not a thought crime? After all, possession of a journal was an actual crime, not a thought crime. He was convicted for actions that he did, not thoughts that he had.
Speaking seriously, did you ever read 1984? Did the point of the book pass entirely over your head? Being convicted of a crime simply for owning a particular book with "illegal information" in it is practically the definition of thoughtcrime. It's so similar to the plot and events of the novel 1984 that it ought to give you chills.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, of course, once you start actually making weapons, that's quite a different story.
Ah, how far we've already slipped.
From an American viewpoint (because TFA is in Britain, which is a little different), it's not a crime to make chemical weapons. It's not a crime to possess explosives, or any other thing that potentially can go boom. It's a crime to use them, or intend to use them in a manner that will harm others. If improperly kept, it can be a violation of certain safety codes, but not a crime.
But nowadays, people automatically associate having explosive or chemicals (regardless what they might be or might be for) as indicative of criminal acts, and the burden of proof is suddenly on the possessor to prove he's not interested in killing people with them. That already is a gross erosion of our fundamental freedoms. Fortunately, at least in the states, there are still a few people able to recognize this difference. But it's most likely not going to be among those in a jury.
We're already halfway down that slippery slope, and it'll only be a matter of time before we get to a point where thoughtcrime becomes a ubiquitous reality.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would mod him up, but I don't want to be seen publicly supporting terrorists.
Too bad, you've confessed the intent to do so - enough to charge you with a conspiracy to support terrorists, mate. The party van is out. Bet if we check your browser cache, it'll turn out that you're a pedo, too.
Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that a book which describes how to make bombs is a terrorist manual, even if some of the speech in the book is inflammatory. There are plenty of legitimate uses for a bomb manual; it could be of great utility to civilian militias, an important part of our freedom and national heritage.
Winston did a lot of illegal things in the novel, yes, but he mentions on several occasions that simply the act of keeping a journal at all is a thoughtcrime.
In North Korea, it is illegal to bring any books into the nation at all, because the government is afraid that reading imported books might cause the people to begin thinking rebellious thoughts. Once you begin to restrict what we can and can't read, I think you're moving into potentially catastrophic territory.
The USSR was clearly an inspiration for much of the novel but it would be a mistake to interpret the novel as a mere indictment of Stalin; all governments, regardless of their economic system and ruling body, are capable of severe oppression and the criminalization of "anti-government" thoughts and writings.
If the events of 1984 were rooted in complete fantasy, I wouldn't bring it up at all, but it is a cautionary tale based on the real-life actions of governments, past and present.
The short version of this is, I don't think anyone should be arrested for owning and reading a book, regardless of what the book says. The freedom to read anything is an important part of having freedom at all. If you want to arrest someone for illegally possessing explosives, fine. If you want to arrest someone for conspiracy to purchase explosives, or conspiracy to commit mass murder or other terrorist acts, fine. However, if you criminalize merely reading about how to make explosives, then you have essentially created a thoughtcrime law.