Man Who Downloaded Bomb Recipes Jailed For 2 Years

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Who Downloaded Bomb Recipes Jailed For 2 Years

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 27, 2012 @06:00AM from the throw-out-your-old-cookbooks dept.

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.'"

42 of 741 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by killfixx · 2012-01-27 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Title should read, "Man arrested for possibly planning to become a terrorist". But still, arrested for criminal possibility.
His potential crime would have been a physical one. It needed bomb ingredients, guns, etc... He had none of the equipment, just the knowledge.
Everything about his crime is just conjecture. How do you prove that he WOULD have done anything. Were there dates of action?
I guess what it boils down to, if you're gonna have "evil" thoughts, don't write them down.
Pre-crime, here to protect you from yourself.
I'm feeling less special every day. I used to think I was a paranoid outsider. Nope, just observant.
Why do the countries witht the highest Press Freedom Index have to be so damned cold.
Update: Looks like Cape Verde has risen in the rankings... Hrmm...Might be worth the change of address.

--
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
1. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by i+kan+reed · 2012-01-27 06:08 · 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.
2. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by kelemvor4 · 2012-01-27 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  Sometimes, America doesn't seem like such a bad place to live after all.
3. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by ackthpt · 2012-01-27 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  Sometimes, America doesn't seem like such a bad place to live after all.
  Give it time.
  I remember a day when the Government didn't track every single thing you did on the internet on some monster database. When I could come and go between Canada as I pleased, without a passport. When my personal computer wasn't loaded with DRM software and the DMCA hadn't even been dreamt of.
  It's creeping in - there are actually quite a lot of people who think it would be a good idea -- of course, not for them, but for, y'know, them other people, the ones who need watching.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
4. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by cayenne8 · 2012-01-27 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Think of it from the other side too, if I had a USB stick full of credit card numbers (yours & your families, let's make it personal), and I told the fed I got them accidentally and was merely researching the sequencing credit card companies used for the their # assignments, does that sound like I'd be in the clear?
  Well, while it *does* sound suspicious...if they cannot show that you obtained them illegally, and cannot show that you have in fact, USED them. I can't see that you could be arrested.
  The mere possession of credit card numbers is NOT a crime. It is merely information.
  Heck, you could have used one of the freely available CC algorithm generators that will generate valid CC numbers,and yes, you might have done this for pure research.
  But if you had not broken in somewhere and stolen them.....if you had not knowingly purchased stolen CC numbers....just having them should not be a crime.
  In the US...at least for now...merely possessing information on how to generate CC's, or how to make a bomb or be an assassin are not crimes. It isn't a crime to own the Anarchy Cookbook, nor that book out years back that described how to kill people and get away with it...etc.
  However, if they find evidence that you were in fact, conspiring to USE that knowledge to commit a crime, then yes...this info could be used as corroborating evidence in the conspiracy case.
  But possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
5. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-01-27 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually, both England and the United states have, for centuries, had a common legal principle that information, of itself, is not harmful as is protected. It is only acts based on that information that are actionable.
  
  This censorship of information is actually pretty recent, even in England. Don't mistake policies made in and around your lifetime for "long-standing" policies; it just ain't so.
6. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by g0bshiTe · 2012-01-27 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Governments fear their citizenry knowing how to combat them in the event that it came down to the citizens vs the government.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
7. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Artraze · 2012-01-27 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't call these "pre-crimes", as, after all, possessing these material is apparently a true crime. I'm not sure what a snappy word would be for them, but they come from "crime prevention" laws which have been around for a long time. Arguably by definition, _all_ possession laws fall into this category: can't own guns because you might shoot someone, can't have alcohol in the car because you might drink some (and being impaired you might hit someone), can't own drugs because you might sell/use them.
  Now, you may say 'but if the goal was to prevent people from getting blown up, wouldn't it be better to just make owning bombs illegal?" Sure, which is why it already is: owning a bomb is a crime... A crime we must prevent! And to way to stop that we is to make it illegal to know how to make a bomb!
  Now, what makes these laws appealing and neat is that they achieve their goal by definition. After all, the original crime is still a crime, but now you can also _maybe_ catch someone before they do it. However, in the grand scheme of things they are awful because they increase the scope of the law beyond the actual crime. At best, you still catch all the perpetrators of the base crime, but the also law opens the ability to 'catch' people that never would have committed the crime you seek to 'prevent'. Thus, while you may prevent one specific crime, you have actually increased crime overall.
8. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by JSBiff · 2012-01-27 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes."
  But there's the crux - where's the evidence this is preliminary to a serious crime? Where is there anything which strongly indicates *intent* to build a bomb or commit a crime.
  I mean, it's one thing if they've got a phone recording of someone giving very explicit instructions to a hitman to kill someone, and making arrangments for payement. That's communications preliminary to a serious crime. That shows definite intent.
  How does downloading plans, but never acquiring any parts, making any threats or anything else, show actual intent?
9. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by killfixx · 2012-01-27 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps my irony detector is busted but I seriously doubt any banker INTENDED to lose a shedload of money and most probably weren't intendiing to blow up the world. The they did do some sockingly stupid things, especially in retrospect. But if we make stupid a crime I doubt we would have enough space if we used a couple of continents as penal colonies.
  HA! :) I actually LOL'd when I read that last bit. Unfortunately, I think they did. The choices they made (dis)respecting where they invested were clearly in their best interest. While the corp may have lost money, it knew the govt would bail 'em out. It had already done so with the airlines. As soon as the banks saw that, they knew they had a golden ticket to fraud. Lost shitloads of cash (I mean SHITLOADS!), and still handed out bonuses to top executives.
  Normally, I'm the first one to subscribe to Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but not this time. This entire thing was willful from the beginning.
  
  --
  "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
10. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by StikyPad · 2012-01-27 06:46 · 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.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
11. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by DarkVader · 2012-01-27 06:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So, will Canada let you in without a passport?
  Because despite all of their blathering about it being required, the US WILL let you back in without one, they'll just hassle you a bit more. It's a violation of pretty well established international law to refuse to admit your own citizens, with or without a passport. And it's not, from what I've been able to gather, a crime to reenter the US without a passport, so no penalty for doing so.
  So the only way the US can actually "require" you to have a passport is if the government has convinced Canada to refuse admittance without one.
12. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Hoi+Polloi · 2012-01-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  0 days would've been better. If he had Rommel's book on armored warfare would the UK government charge him with planning an invasion of Russia?
  
  --
  It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
13. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by rot26 · 2012-01-27 07:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You realize, of course, that you don't need a passport to leave the US
  
  Wrongo. You must have mistaken the US for a free country. I remember when I was younger and we used to hear all the scary stuff about the bad bad soviet union. They couldn't even LEAVE THEIR OWN COUNTRY without permission. hahahahahahaha. We have met the enemy and he is us.
  
  --
  
  To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
14. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-01-27 07:07 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
  False dichotomy. There is a third choice. Watch the guy. Maybe he's even got co-conspirators and then you can nab them too when they all do something actually illegal like coming up with a real plot and trying to buy bomb ingredients.
  In the US the FBI goes to great lengths to entrap people with (self-interested) informants and undercover plants. What, the brits are too cheap to drop a couple of drug charges against some con in exchange for ingratiating himself with a potential terrorist?
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
15. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by citylivin · 2012-01-27 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?"
  Yes of course we should wait till he commits an actual crime to charge him with one. But here i stupidly believe that one should have to commit an actual crime to go to jail. Of course i haven't been brainwashed by CSI and chuck bauer to believe that people are guilty until proven innocent. Fuck this "thought crime" stuff.
  If he is indeed a danger, they could you know, gather real evidence, get a court order to tap his phones, etc. Then they should have no problem proving in court that he was meeting with terrorists, or buying supplies for bomb making or whatever. He could simply be researching a book or something! Saying he is definitely a terrorist based on a few files on his hard drive is making quite a leap that would have been an un thinkable position in the mid 90s, when MOST of us had a floppy disk with the anarchists cookbook on it. I don't believe that "times have changed". Freedom never goes out of style.
  Id rather have thousands of innocent people getting killed (even if i was one of them), than have one innocent person going to jail for a crime they have not even committed. I am sure we all wrote crazy stuff in our diaries in middle school which could be taken out of context by the right government official. So if those thousand people survived, and I was one of them, would I want my children growing up in a world where people can be rounded up based on the contents of a text file and nothing more?
  Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils. Still the best American motto in my opinion.
  
  --
  As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
16. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by ChrisMaple · 2012-01-27 07:35 · 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
17. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by gknoy · 2012-01-27 07:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  US WILL let you back in without one, they'll just hassle you a bit more. It's a violation of pretty well established international law to refuse to admit your own citizens, with or without a passport. And it's not, from what I've been able to gather, a crime to reenter the US without a passport, so no penalty for doing so.
  I submit that it might be very unwise to operate on that assumption.
  The US has a history or saying that the constitution doesn't apply at borders or customs (as you're not *IN* the US yet, legally), that international treaties don't apply to certain people we've detained, and so on. I have no desire to pass through the US border in either direction, but if I did I would be damned certain I had my passport. You say "they'll just hassle you more", and I read, "They might detain, search, or hassle you for as long as they want, and confiscate whatever they feel like, and you'll have no recourse".
18. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-27 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  in 5 yrs or less, TSA will convert 'drivers licenses' into internal US passports.
  ie, they'll install themselves at every point where people change planes, busses, trains, etc. highways/tollboothes are not out of their reach, either, in their eyes.
  so, to pass around in the US, you'll need to stay off this or that 'bad guy' list. move around in your own country? you'll have to reverify yourself.
  but its all for our own safety, don't you know.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
19. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Hatta · 2012-01-27 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's not clear intent, that's wishful thinking. Where and when did he intend to bomb? If there's no plan, there's no intent.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
20. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-01-27 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well you did have Goldman Sachs selling things to people that they knew were going to or very likely to fail (and did fail in the end)...precisely because Goldman Sachs were making bets that they would fail.
  
  That's pretty much the definition of fraud....
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
21. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Hatta · 2012-01-27 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This will likely get modded as flamebait and/or I'll be told I'm some sort of communist against free speech, but the simple fact is that if they were able to prove in a court of law that this person was actively looking for this information - you don't go actively looking for such information, and keep a shopping list of the sorts of things that you could use to commit such an act at hand unless you're either working in a particularly specialised field or actually looking to commit some sort of atrocity.
  Yes, you are some sort of communist against free speech. You just criminalized curiosity. You are more dangerous than any terrorist. Terrorists can only kill people. Censorship kills ideas.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-27 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly, this would be like claiming you were intending to counterfeit Windows because you downloaded the Win2K source code that hit the net awhile back. Hell who HASN'T looked at the anarchist cookbook just to see what the fuss was about? Most of the same stuff they listed in the book you've seen in movies about hitmen, I remember one using the whole 'rig a light bulb with Joy liquid and gas to make a timed bomb' trick, i think it was a Charles Bronson movie. this is no different than demanding libraries give out a list of everyone who has ever checked out 'The Catcher In The Rye' because some nutball had a copy when they went apeshit. If they found him with a bomb lab in his kitchen fine and dandy, otherwise its "ZOMFG he can read! that's no good, he might have thoughts and stuff ZOMFG!" Allow me to say though thanks to the UK, every time I think the USA is the douchebag jackboot country you gotta come along and top us, thus making us feel a little better about our country, so thanks.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
23. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by Bootsy+Collins · 2012-01-27 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  God, who modded this up? In what way does that clearly show intent? It might, or it might not, depending on how he meant the word "jihad," which normally does not mean terrorism or, to western Muslims, even any kind of armed fight with or assault on enemies. It can (and frequently does) mean nothing more than the personal struggle to lead a good life.
  Mind, I'm not saying he didn't have nefarious ends in minds; I have no idea. But how are you so sure he did, from those words?
24. Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only choices left are which depressing SF/SciFi/SyFy dystopia you like
  SyFy != Sci Fi. Sci fi is Asimov and Heinlein and Star Wars and 2001. SyFy is stupid shit on a useless cable channel that is an embarrasment to anybody with half a brain.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
where do I turn myself in by Trepidity · 2012-01-27 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny

So I got this copy of the "Anarchist Cookbook", is this terrorism?

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:where do I turn myself in by Blue+Stone · 2012-01-27 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >So I got this copy of the "Anarchist Cookbook", is this terrorism?
  In order to answer this question, please stand next to this Dulux colour chart featuring the natural wood range.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Science text books by Detaer · 2012-01-27 06:05 · 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 · 2012-01-27 06:27 · 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:Science text books by dnewt · 2012-01-27 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The police certainly aren't doing themselves any favours with this statement though:
  "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. That is why we had to take action."
  I don't know about everyone else, but that really doesn't follow to me. Whether he actively seeked out the material or not, taking action on that basis alone is still "policing people's freedom to browse the internet" in my opinion.
This isn't as bad as it looks by Baron_Yam · 2012-01-27 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

They ALSO uncovered letters where he stated he was prepared for jihad and was seeking guidance, plus he'd gone so far as to spec and price out his weaponry.
He wasn't just some curious chemist who happened to have an arabic-sounding name.
1. Re:This isn't as bad as it looks by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-01-27 06:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They ALSO uncovered letters where he stated he was prepared for jihad and was seeking guidance, plus he'd gone so far as to spec and price out his weaponry.
  He wasn't just some curious chemist who happened to have an arabic-sounding name.
  Reading TFA and commenting on anything but the skewed summary is discouraged.
  Bombs+weapons+expressed desire to use them = probably a bad guy. "Probably" should not be enough for prison, though.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
2. Re:This isn't as bad as it looks by MozeeToby · 2012-01-27 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What exactly did he do that you think should be illegal? He downloaded information off the internet; price lists, and bomb recipes. He possibly contacted someone (a single letter that may or may not have ever been sent) asking for spiritual guidance in relation to jihad. Note: not asking for support or guidance on how to perform jihad, but asking for spirtual guidance in relation to his having prepared for it. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have been investigated, watched, and quite probably seen by a psychiatrist, but he hadn't done anything outside his computer and his head. And when we start locking people up for what they're thinking, we're already 90% of the way down the slippery sloap.
3. Re:This isn't as bad as it looks by Hatta · 2012-01-27 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bombs+weapons+expressed desire to use them = probably a bad guy.
  Just like every president in memory.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Holy Fuck! Pre-crime??? by Ecuador · 2012-01-27 06:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Uh, oh, I am really worried about myself. Not only can I think of many ways I could construct explosive or incendiary devices, I can think of OVER 100 WAYS TO KILL someone! And there are quite a few people I don't really like! Many of them are sitting in the parliament (note: I am Greek) so they have connections to the police!
I am surely a prime suspect for potential terrorism, murder, political assassination and I don't know what else!
Oh, shit! I just realized I know where the VAGINA is! Potential for RAPE right there!!!
Where do I hide guys???

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* by NemoinSpace · 2012-01-27 06:12 · 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.
Conspiracy to commit a felony by blackC0pter · 2012-01-27 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

IANAL. Conspiracy to commit a felony can be punished pretty severely as is evidenced by this situation. Some people will argue that this tramples rights because you cannot even read something without risk of going to jail. The flip side is how do you arrest someone that is planning on blowing up a building without this law? Do you wait until they blow up the building so you can actually arrest them? What about someone planning to kill someone or rape someone? Do you wait until they commit the crime to arrest them or arrest them when you have enough evidence that they are planning to commit the crime? What if someone was planning to kill you or blow you up? Wouldn't you want them arrested BEFORE they killed you?
Re:Sad day by dave420 · 2012-01-27 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yet another person who doesn't know what a police state actually is... Hint: The UK is not one, and not even close.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* by Marc+Madness · 2012-01-27 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Interesting that later in the article we find the following quote from Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Porter: "This case has never been about proving an endgame and we may never know what his intentions were". So they admit to not knowing his intentions, how can they in good conscience say they are arresting him for intent?
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* by killfixx · 2012-01-27 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Prepared for jihad. That's your argument.
If I wrote a letter that said I am prepared financially and spiritually for violence and had a shopping list containing weapons. Should I be arrested?
If I have a erection and tell a friend, "Man, I'd really like to rape that chick." Should I be arrested?
The question isn't whether terrorism should be illegal, it's whether unclear and unsubstantiated intent is illegal. Were the plans for when and where he would strike?
No, just a letter saying he was ready if called.
As much as I detest violence and (insert all bad things here), I vehemently oppose others controlling what I'm allowed to think.

--
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* by fish_in_the_c · 2012-01-27 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what if his spirtial guidance turned out to be 'don't do it man'! ... you shouldn't punish people for being tempted, because EVERYONE is tempted to do what is wrong from time to time. It is only when they actually DO it that they have DONE something illegal.
Sorry , but the though police should have no place in the modern world, but Europe has never fully had the same ideas as america on that.
Our constitution was designed to allow for citizens to actually talk about plan and attempt to carry out a rebellion if the government every stopped listening too them, by people who had just recently done exactly that.
So, you are not supposed to be able to arrest people for 'treason speech' or 'intent' in this country ( the kings of Europe routinely did such things.) They expected oaths of loyalty and anyone who wouldn't take them could be punished etc. etc.

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Re:Ah yes, 'dangerous information' by radio4fan · 2012-01-28 00:43 · 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.