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.

38 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by damburger · · 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.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And a difference between owning the instructions, and owning the instructions, the raw materials, and the finished products.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article says that the son was convicted only of the thoughtcrime. I would've thought that if he was actually involved with making the poison, both could've been convicted for that.

      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.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read the first link - the BBC story is about a guy who simply collected and sold information, while the Telegraph story is about those who were caught using it.

      The charge that the former pleaded guilty to was "collecting information that could have been used to prepare or commit acts of terrorism". It's an insanely broad law which can and (if history is anything to go by) will be used to stifle legitimate collection of factual information, not to mention the chilling effect from simply having it on the books.

      Any number of things, not least the majority of university level science and engineering textbooks, could be extremely useful to terrorists. The law is probably there to be selectively applied to those who they can't get anything else on. Sure, it probably will rightly convict a few potentially dangerous people, but in doing so we are suffering a huge abridgement of our rights.

    4. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would mod him up, but I don't want to be seen publicly supporting terrorists.

    5. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're advocating is making most people criminals and then trusting the police to only arrest the ones who 'deserve it'.

      Honestly, that method probably would result in more criminals being convicted, but it also vastly increases the power of the police to act without oversight. Anybody who pisses off an officer could quite easily and legitimately be convicted, despite having done nothing (really) wrong.

    6. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, 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. It's a matter of public record! Hillarious! :D

      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.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    7. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Criminalising everybody only works if you absolutely trust the state and your local police to enforce such things nicely. In reality, given sufficiently vague laws, some of them would be just as likely to arrest you because they were fed up of you complaining about the drunken Doberman owner and it presents an easier way to make you leave them alone.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    8. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Smauler · · Score: 4, Funny

      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).

      I don't think eating the mice afterwards in mandatory.

    10. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Possession and distribution of a terrorist manual is an actual crime, not a thought crime. He's convicted for actions that he did, not thoughts that he had.

      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.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    11. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its still bullshit. The "terrorism manual" might just accidentally have been the only place he could find that would describe what he needed. Or he had the manual from before because he was curious, and later when he wanted to produce the actual substance (just for fun) and he looked it up in the manual, since he had it handy already.

      There are so many reasons that he could be in possession of both that do not establish intent at all, it's just pointless.

      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.

    13. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


      We in the UK aren't facing an 'epidemic of knife crime', either. It was just the Daily Mail looking for something to get excited about and the Labour government looking for more reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do.

      Though this isn't me arguing against gun ownership, it's just trying to strip away hysteria and media manipulation.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    14. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, 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.

    15. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly: punishing someone for mere possession of information is the creation of thoughtcrime.

      The trouble with thoughtcrime is that not only does it not consider intent, which is hard to determine in absolute terms in court anyway, it also does not consider action, which is the objective basis for most court cases. Where do you draw the line, if your society is not going to allow people to explore information?

      I personally have no interest in making chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, but I can imagine that a research chemist might overlap the former and an engineer working on a nuclear power plant might overlap the latter. Maybe I'm irrational, but I like the idea that pharma companies can develop new drugs to improve our health, and power firms can provide enough electricity to keep the lights on.

      I do have an interest in driving, and was taught many of the same techniques as police drivers by my ex-police driving instructor, to help me avoid accidents and stay safer on the roads. At what point does knowledge of these techniques become "acts preparatory to terrorism" or something like that, given that I am familiar with some of the defensive driving techniques that security officers would use to protect a VIP?

      I also have a background in martial arts. I probably know a lot of things that would help me if I were ever to confront a police officer with their usual array of weapons and defensive equipment. I have no reason to do so and never have done so, but if we're allowing thoughtcrime then when does this knowledge change from an academic interest in historical arts or the results of training for perfectly legal contact sports into something sinister and worthy of suspicion or even prosecution?

      I would guess that a high proportion of responsible, normally law-abiding adults in the UK could be fitted up with some sort of thoughtcrime without too much effort. As Cardinal Richlieu famously said, "Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something in them with which to hang him."

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    16. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Internalist · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
    17. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:Could've been the Anarchist's Cookbook.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Oh no am I in trouble. by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I was a teenager I taught myself about everything from religion and witchcraft to bombs, computer hacking, and chemical weapons. Guess that means I'm a terrorist.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Oh no am I in trouble. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:"white-supremacist father and son" by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 4, 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.

  4. Illegal? by wmspider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Illegal? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

      You think that's bad? Imagine what happens when the powers that be find out, that about 49% of the population have the tools needed to rape women?

    2. Re:Illegal? by Kijori · · Score: 4, 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.

  5. Useful to commit acts of terrorism? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not the Anarchist's Cookbook. Rife with inaccuracies and dangerous, or so my chemist friends tell me.

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    1. Re:Useful to commit acts of terrorism? by Mr.+Flibble · · 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.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  6. this reminds me of a kid I once knew etc. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FWIW, I knew a guy at school who was investigated by British police about 14 years ago for downloading manuals like this and being involved with a group of people involved in distributing such material and building shit for kicks... a Bachelors and a Masters later, he is now working at the Ministry of Defence (the UK DoD) as a strategist.

    This doesn't surprise me at all. He was a fairly bright chap - though nothing spectacular - but his heart remained that of a pathological kid who liked pain and blowing shit up. The military want a monopoly on that sort of person; they'll either catch you when they can mould you, or get rid of you.

  7. Re:"white-supremacist father and son" by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. I ran into some of those type preaching their hate in Dallas and told those standing there listening to their hate about my grandfather's experience in WWII, how he was there when they liberated one of the camps, how they had the bodies of prisoners stacked up like cordwood, how you couldn't tell male from female because they were all so starved, how they were warned before hand not to give them any food because the rich diet of K Rations that the soldiers had would cause them to have a systemic collapse, a real fucking horror story.

    I would MUCH rather have those types of speech out in the open, where they can be confronted, than to allow them to fester underground unopposed, and my grandfather believed that as well. When I asked him if watching the protests against the soldiers in Viet Nam bothered him he said "We fought the Nazis so we would be free to speak, so even if I don't support their words, I support their right to say them". i know this crap like "free speech zones" would have grandfather spinning in his grave fast enough to power the southern US.

    So while I say bust their ass if they are making bombs I do NOT support anyone getting busted for simply reading or possessing a book. Too close to thoughtcrime for my tastes. And never forget there are plenty on the far sides of the political spectrum that would just looove to throw anyone in jail who reads Marx or Mao or anything that is other than "Capitalism Fuck Yeah!"

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Re:"white-supremacist father and son" by dangitman · · 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.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  9. Chemistry teaching in Britain by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, 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

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Chemistry teaching in Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      what H2SO4 smells like

      Warning: Do not sniff H2SO4 with remaining nostril!

  10. Re:Bad summary. by Kijori · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I've explained above, this law does not criminalise the possession of information. It is only an offence to gather information that would help in the commission of an act of terrorism with the intention that it be used to assist the commission of this act. I think we can all agree that people who are part of a plot to perpetrate acts of terrorism should be jailed.

  11. Re:"white-supremacist father and son" by Heywood+J.+Blaume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Sharing by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, 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.

  13. Re:Yah by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  14. Some better instructions by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you search the web you'll find:

    AF Regulation 64-4 - Search and Rescue Survival Training

    FM 3-24 - MCWP 3-33.5 - Counterinsurgency

    TM 31-210 - Improvised Munitions Handbook

    These are non-copyrighted, public domain texts prepared by the USA armed forces. They all teach how to create terror in the enemy ranks. The last one, "Improvised Munitions", teaches how to make explosives from stuff you find anywhere.

    No need to go through lengthy procedures to buy "dangerous" chemicals, they are everywhere if you know where to look. And this free manual, courtesy of the US Army, teaches you where to look.