Slashdot Mirror
In UK, First "Anarchist's Cookbook" Downloaders' Convictions
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 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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
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.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
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.
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).
I'm sure what I did would be considered a crime today. In my day it was considered boys being boys.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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.
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
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.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Just like unpopular speech is still free, Slashdot posts aren't modded up for correctness or popularity. They're modded up for being interesting and well-communicated. Just because someone's wrong doesn't mean they should be modded down. I want to see the comments with which I disagree, so I can argue with them. Which is what happened here. I was actually meta-moderating, and your comment came up. I just had to jump in.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
the father made some ricin.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
How did it go?! "We don't allow people having guns, so why would we them allow having ideas."