Slashdot Mirror


Man Who Downloaded Bomb Recipes Jailed For 2 Years

chrb writes "Asim Kauser, a 25-year-old British man, has been jailed for two years and three months for downloading recipes on how to make bombs and the toxin ricin. Police discovered the materials on a USB stick Asim's father gave to them following a burglary at the Kauser family home. Asim pled guilty and claimed that he only downloaded the materials because he was curious. A North West Counter-Terrorism Unit spokesman said, 'I also want to stress that this case is not about policing people's freedom to browse the Internet. The materials that were downloaded were not stumbled upon by chance — these had to be searched for and contained very dangerous information that could have led to an explosive device being built.'"

7 of 741 comments (clear)

  1. Science text books by Detaer · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am guessing the people who brought him up on charges have never actually read a science textbook. Sure its a little winded and takes a while to get to it, but by reading the average science textbook from jr high and above you can figure out how to create some pretty dangerous chemical reactions that should scale fairly well. Knowing about something and being jailed for it it thought crime. Trying to set limits on the human condition of curiosity and interest could pave the path of a dangerous road.

    1. Re:Science text books by dnewt · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm all for not limiting freedom of curiosity, but if you have a read of TFA, it says that along with the downloaded material, was a letter from a "24 year old man" (Asim Kauser is now 25), in which the writer states he "seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad". It's not possible to say for sure without being in possession of all the facts & evidence, but on the face of it, that seems like it could add intent into the mix. Take that together with the "shopping list" they apparently found, and that changes things quite a bit. I'm no lawyer, and the article is a bit thin on detailed facts, but I'm guessing at some point the prosecution were able to convince a jury he was the author of those documents.

  2. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would point out that England has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes. There's no implicit assumption in the British legal system that communications are harmless.

    2 Years seems a bit drastic, when a month or two would have been better for preventing polarization. As an American, of course, I find this antithetical to my values, but I don't have as much of a stake in British law.

  3. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* by NemoinSpace · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: A further examination of the stick revealed a letter, addressed to an unknown recipient, in which the author - again anonymous but referring to himself as a 24-year-old man - seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad.

  4. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Informative

    possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.

    Yes it is. Whether it should continue to be a crime or not is up to the people of the UK.

  5. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to raise a finer point: the old USSR required internal passports to move about the country.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. Re:Ah yes, 'dangerous information' by radio4fan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh well, gotta remember that the UK has no real free speech rights codified into law.. for what that's worth..

    Please don't conflate a real shitty law with a fictitious old canard.

    The UK has the Human Rights Act, of which article 10 guarantees free speech. Before this, rights to free speech were part of common law dating back centuries.

    If you mean "the UK has no absolute free speech rights" you are correct. Try making threats against the President's life to see if you have absolute free speech rights.

    But this case has nothing to do with free speech. He was convicted under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which proscribes "collect[ing] or mak[ing] a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Bullshit, of course (a tube map is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism), but not a free speech issue.

    People convicted in similar cases have been acquitted on appeal where the prosecution cannot show that the defendant intended to commit a specific act of terrorism. Wannabe terrorists, IOW. Doubtless this goofball will be acquitted on appeal too, but that won't be so widely reported, and if it is, the government have an excuse to pass more draconian 'anti-terrorist' laws.

    Don't miss the fact that this legislation predates 9/11.