Slashdot Mirror


UK Woman Charged As Terrorist For Computer Files

Terror Alert Brown writes "Reuters is reporting that a UK woman has been charged as a terrorist because of computer files on her hard drive. According to the article, these files included 'the Al Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook, The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, a manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle, and The Firearms and RPG Handbook.' She was picked up in connection with the plot stopped in August to detonate explosives in airplanes flying out of Heathrow airport. Now might be a good time to delete any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook you once read for amusement and still have floating around on your hard drive."

4 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Is worse for those of us that bought the book. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some of us bought the book ( and others like it ) many years ago, when it was still legal to read, and information was not restricted. Now we may pay for exercising our rights back then since the rules have changed since then.

    Once knowledge becomes a crime, freedom is gone.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  2. Re:She was linked to a group of terrorists... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A totally innocent combo:

    ...in possession of a night vision scope .... and a poisons handbook.
    ... especially in light of:

    MI5 tracking '30 UK terror plots'
    MI5 knows of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and is keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance, the security service's head has said.


    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. Re:Since when is linking a crime? by Zemran · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do you remember the paedophile riots a few years back when a paediatrician in Portsmouth was beaten up because the mob were too stupid to know the difference?

    Same mentality, new cause...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  4. "linking" should be considered very carefully by snarkth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So... do you know, for certain, that everyone you know, or have exchanged files with or phone messages or mail or time with, is *not* or *will not in the future* be considered a criminal or a terrorist?

      Years ago I dated a woman for several months who was arrested (and eventually convicted) as being a courier for a methamphetmine distribution ring a few months after we ceased seeing each other. I had no idea what she was into, but I was visited many times by police officers who grilled me at length as to our relationship - because my phone# was in her cellphone and there were "handwritten documents" - letters, notes, journal entries - in her domicile that had my name on them - and threatened with prison for being "non-cooperative"; my apartment was searched twice, and details of the investigation leaked to local reporters.

      I was "associated" with a drug ring, although I had no knowledge nor involvement in it. Fortunately I was cleared without being indicted or subpeoned, but only after several months of random interrogation and very annoying, obvious and aggravating surveillance which cost me reputation and money. Many months later there were still people spreading damaging rumors about me; I eventually moved more than a thousand miles from there, partially for personal reasons, but also because my business dried up to an extent as a result of the attention. One of the things the police threw at me was our intense exchange of phone calls over that short period. They just didn't seem to believe that maybe I was interested in her because she was an attractive woman. I spoke to a local lawyer about it who told me there was no recourse - iow, I couldn't sue the local police department for the damage caused.

      I'd like to note that no public statement was ever made by the local PD regarding my innocence, despite repeated demands on the part of me and my lawyer to do so. That, to me, was criminal negligence on the part of the local PD. How many times does one see public apologies for ruining someone's life in that sort of circumstance? IF this woman turns out to have been innocently duped, will she ever recover her life? What recourse might *she* have?

      In the US, we have this oft-repeated yet apparently little understood concept called "innnocent until proven guilty". Or at least we used to.

      I'm not defending the woman in the article (insufficient data), but I am trying to point out just how damaging baseless allegations can be, especially when made by "authorities" and spread by the media - and if you think that you are immune to it, you might want to reconsider that. It can happen to anyone; don't think you're immune to it simply because you are innocent. People in a society are interconnected, that's why we call it a society. What are you going to do, avoid all connections with other people? There was another sort of damage there - I'm even more paranoid than I used to be when it comes to relationships. Can I sue them for it? Should I? I've been advised against it, as the burden of "proof of damages" would be too difficult. But the damage is very real.

      So tell me, friend, where should the line be drawn?

    snarked