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."
I'm not feeling any rights violations here
Well... it's possible you're not aware you're using Slashdot, I suppose. The AUP here includes making sure that every post includes a raving, drooling insistance that your rights have just been violated, have always been violated, and always will, no matter what, at all times, with regard to every conceivable topic, in every way (unless you work for Microsoft, in which case you have no rights). Speaking of which: um... (I'm having to reach, here...) saying you're not offended is a way of offending those of us that are! Um... ok, so that's not a rights issue, but that AUP is pretty strict, so I have to be indignant. It's the spirit of the thing.
BTW, I completely agree with you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...my copy of The Anarchists Cookbook is in print! Not that it wasn't stripped of any seriously bad info (if it ever had any) long before I bought it as part of earlier edits.
How long ago was it a capital offense to possess a written copy of the bible? Back then, that was considered to be just as bad, but we (society) decided that merely posessing information was not a crime. So, are we back to the dark ages? Shall we start destroying printing presses again? Maybe we should stop teaching children to read, since it apparently leads to terrorism charges.
So what's an explosives expert that happens to know the address of city hall supposed to do? Turn himself in to the police for being smarter than the ave-er-age bear? Or is it ok for some people to have certain knowledge and not others?
Classified documents are about disclosure(i.e. appropriateness of telling), not appropriateness of knowing, so let's not go that way.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Orc murderer!
You're pretty stupid.
My opinion is the British government *AND* the terrorists are bad. Both are vile opportunistic groups, and both, if it was a perfect world, would be buried in an avalanche of contempt from right-thinking people.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
it was "Durka Durka Muhammad Jihad!"
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Of course people are interconnected, but it works both ways. Criminals have a lot of connections with other people and the police has no possibility of investigating them all. They have to choose who are the most likely suspects, given the facts they know.
In your case, it seems that you had a rather close relationship with a criminal, by your own account you seem a likely suspect to me. How can you date a criminal for several months without realizing something is wrong? From what you have written, I don't feel the police owns you any apology, they were just doing their job. I don't think the police has the duty to make any public statements on the innocence of the people they investigate, after all the law states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Think of the ultimate consequences if it were assumed that the police could be prosecuted for investigating innocent people, justice would be entirely paralyzed. I know this because I live in Brazil, a country where personal honor is given as much protection under the constitution as freedom of expression. The consequence is that corruption is rampant here, it's very hard for anyone, be it the police or a journalist, to investigate anyone. Publish any damaging evidence and you are sued for "defamation", because you cannot make accusations against innocent people. They are innocent until proven guilty, therefore their right to personal honor trumps your liberty of expression.