Lawyer reviewing terror laws and special powers: Definition of 'terrorism' is too broad

Can sweep up hate criminals, bloggers, journos


The definition of terrorism in current UK law is too broad and should be narrowed to avoid "catching" journalists, bloggers and hate criminals, a top lawyer said today.

David Anderson QC, who is Britain's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued during an interview on the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme this morning that the word "influence" should be removed to prevent the wrong type of offences being caught up in terror law.

He said that instead the legislation should require that terrorists must be shown to "intimidate or coerce or to compel".

An annual report (PDF) was laid before Parliament today in which Anderson urged MPs to review the definition of terrorism "to avoid the potential for abuse," according to the Guardian.

Anderson has separately been tasked with leading an independent review of the capabilities and powers required by police and spooks and the regulatory framework within which that law should be exercised in light of the fast-tracked Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Drip).

He said:

Foolish or dangerous journalism is one thing, terrorism is another. The problem there is the way the bar is set.

It's enough that you're trying to influence the government for political reasons. In most other countries you need to have to intimidate or coerce the government before you can be a terrorist.

One such high-profile case involved David Miranda, the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald. It's understood that Greenwald is in possession of large amounts of secret files leaked by former NSA sysadmin Edward Snowden.

Miranda, who was carrying classified information on behalf of the Guardian newspaper, was detained at Heathrow airport and interrogated for almost nine hours last August under anti-terrorism legislation while in transit from Germany to Brazil, where he lives with Greenwald.

The detention and interrogation by British police of Miranda was ruled at the time to be legal by a British judge.

But Anderson said this morning that such action was troubling and he argued that it was "more difficult to defend ... the use of anti-terrorism laws for that purpose."

He added: "One might be thinking of official secrets, of espionage, of theft, but it's a bit of a stretch to see somebody like that as a potential terrorist."

MPs will be asked to "revisit" Blighty's current anti-terrorism law to address the broad definition problem. Anderson said that the legislation "fails to distinguish, in all respects, between hate crime and terrorism."

Westminster should narrow the definition, he argued, to help gain public support "for special powers that are unfortunately likely to be needed for the foreseeable future." ®


Other stories you might like

  • Experts: AI should be recognized as inventors in patent law
    Plus: Police release deepfake of murdered teen in cold case, and more

    In-brief Governments around the world should pass intellectual property laws that grant rights to AI systems, two academics at the University of New South Wales in Australia argued.

    Alexandra George, and Toby Walsh, professors of law and AI, respectively, believe failing to recognize machines as inventors could have long-lasting impacts on economies and societies. 

    "If courts and governments decide that AI-made inventions cannot be patented, the implications could be huge," they wrote in a comment article published in Nature. "Funders and businesses would be less incentivized to pursue useful research using AI inventors when a return on their investment could be limited. Society could miss out on the development of worthwhile and life-saving inventions."

    Continue reading
  • Declassified and released: More secret files on US govt's emergency doomsday powers
    Nuke incoming? Quick break out the plans for rationing, censorship, property seizures, and more

    More papers describing the orders and messages the US President can issue in the event of apocalyptic crises, such as a devastating nuclear attack, have been declassified and released for all to see.

    These government files are part of a larger collection of records that discuss the nature, reach, and use of secret Presidential Emergency Action Documents: these are executive orders, announcements, and statements to Congress that are all ready to sign and send out as soon as a doomsday scenario occurs. PEADs are supposed to give America's commander-in-chief immediate extraordinary powers to overcome extraordinary events.

    PEADs have never been declassified or revealed before. They remain hush-hush, and their exact details are not publicly known.

    Continue reading
  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022