The examination and detention of David Miranda on 18 August at Heathrow Airport has brought Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in to sharp focus. Its purpose is to deter terrorism, an aim that it strives to achieve through facilitating the stop, search and examination (under compulsion) of individuals. I say individuals rather than suspects as there does not need to be any reasonable suspicion that any terrorist offence has been or will be committed. That said the selection of individuals is to be based on “informed considerations” (such as intelligence), should not be used arbritrarily and must only be applied to determine those who may be concerned in acts of terrorism. The power only applies to those believed to be entering or departing the United Kingdom and this belief must be justifiable in the individual circumstances.
Be in no doubt that, whatever the expressed safeguards as to informed selection and justifiable beliefs, Schedule 7 is draconian. It was meant to be. It was aimed at preventing terrorism through exceptional legislative means. It exceptionally permits individuals to be stopped, questioned under threat of prosecution if they refuse to answer and their possessions seized (under threat of prosecution) should they fail to comply. It turns the accepted approach to criminal suspects on its head; the need to demonstrate a prior reasonable suspicion of offending is removed and the protection of silence is pierced by a compulsion to answer all questions. It is a blunt but arguably necessary tool in the fight against terror. The danger is that it becomes a blunt tool to batter down doors unconnected with terrorism. It cannot and should not be applied as a means to achieve any other objective.
In order to obtain confidential or sensitive information such as journalistic content the police must ordinarily undergo a route that involves obtaining a production order. To obtain such an order they must essentially satisfy a court that the order is justified and the protection afforded to the material can be overcome. Evidently Schedule 7 was never meant to take aim at journalism but, given the powers of compelled answers and seizure of material, one can instantly appreciate the fast lane route it would provide to obtaining information for extraneous intelligence purposes. That would be an abuse of the Act, a likely breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and unlawful on a number of levels but how can we safeguard against it? “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies” [who will guard the Guardians] wrote Juvenal. Rather apt.
Statement from Gwendolen Morgan of Bindmans LLP after David Miranda wins a limited injunction preventing UK government from “inspecting, copying or sharing” data seized from him at Heathrow Airport on 19 August.
Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained and questioned by UK police for nine hours, and had data drives, believed to hold information leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, seized from him.
According to the Guardian,
The court ruled the authorities must not inspect the data nor distribute it domestically or to any foreign government or agency unless it is for the purpose of ensuring the protection national security or for investigating whether Miranda is himself involved in the commission, instigation or preparation of an act of terrorism.
But the ruling also meant that data cannot be used for the purposes of criminal investigation
If we want the web to be a positive place for young people, we need to start talking about the positive things that happen there
Texan teenager Justin Carter was released on bail on 11 July, after his $500,000 bail was paid anonymously. His family had been unable to raise that amount previously.
The young man had been in a Texan prison since February, charged with making “terroristic threats” on Facebook.
“I’m f—ed in the head alright. I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them.”
Not pleasant, no. Not particularly funny. But is it an actual threat? I really don’t think so.
Carter’s lawyer insists that the teen posted “LOL” and “jk” (joke) immediately afterwards to clarify that he wasn’t serious. And yet he finds himself facing a terror-related charge, with a possible sentence of 10 years ahead of him.
Why?
Americans are often wrongly accused of not getting irony, but this is one of those awful cases where the letter of the law clashes with expression that is clearly not meant to be taken literally.
Britons will be all too aware that they cannot be too complacent about these cases. People such as Paul Chambers, Azhar Ahmed, Liam Stacey and Matthew Woods have all felt the full force of the law for inappropriate, ill-advised social media messages, under laws that have been clumsily applied and don’t really allow for context – the crucial component in all free speech cases (though the Crown Prosecution Service has at least attempted to offset this problem with its new recommendations).
It’s interesting that almost all these recent cases involve young men.
The only exception I can think of is 21 year-old British woman Deyka Ayan Hassan, who was recently sentenced to 250 hours community service for a tweet in the aftermath of the murder of Lee Rigby, in which she said anyone wearing a Help For Heroes t-shirt deserved to be beheaded.
A lot of social media at the moment is based on getting a reaction; our worth is based on how many likes or comments a post gets, or responses and retweets on Twitter. The most hardened editor will sit anxiously viewing how many times an article is tweeted.
This pushes content posted in certain directions: either mind-numbingly banal but well meaning to the point where people feel bad for not responding (RT IF YOU THINK CANCER IS BAD), or snarky and borderline – or just plain – offensive (CANCER IS LOLZ).
The latter type of comment is the one that’s getting young people in trouble.
A segment of the Olympic opening ceremony in London last summer made a great deal of the amazing power of communications technology in young people’s lives, with “founder of the web” Tim Berners Lee looking on benignly as a sweet love story played out between pretty teenagers wielding smartphones.
But the way we talk about the web now does not reflect that idealism. The current debate in the UK portrays the web overwhelmingly as the habitat of trolls, predators, bullies and pornmongers. And that, plus the police are watching too, ready to arrest you for saying the wrong thing.
I can’t help feeling that all this doom-mongering could be self fulfilling. If we keep thinking of the web as the badlands, that’s how it will be, like a child beset by endless criticism and low expectations. We need to talk more about the positive side of life online – the conversations, the friendhips, the opportunities – if we’re going to get the most out of it.
Theresa May’s comments on the Andrew Marr Show have lead to a round of speculation around the actions that the Home Secretary will take in the wake of Woolwich, especially in regard to the shelved Communications Data Bill.
Home Secretary Theresa May appeared on the Andrew Marr Show. See the video. (Photo: BBC)
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:
“May is using Woolwich as an excuse to argue for bringing back a totally disproportionate measure of population-wide data collection that no democracy should countenance. The law already allows for those inciting violence to be prosecuted. The best way to contest hate speech is with more speech not less speech. The government shouldn’t be creating lists of who should and shouldn’t appear on TV.”
May told Marr on Sunday, “we need to see if there are additional steps we should be taking to prevent radicalisation”.
May told the BBC One host that the government would be looking at banning orders, as well as the role of Ofcom.
“There is no doubt that people are able to watch things through the internet that can lead to radicalisation,” she said.
The examination and detention of David Miranda on 18 August at Heathrow Airport has brought Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in to sharp focus. Its purpose is to deter terrorism, an aim that it strives to achieve through facilitating the stop, search and examination (under compulsion) of individuals. I say individuals rather than suspects as there does not need to be any reasonable suspicion that any terrorist offence has been or will be committed. That said the selection of individuals is to be based on “informed considerations” (such as intelligence), should not be used arbritrarily and must only be applied to determine those who may be concerned in acts of terrorism. The power only applies to those believed to be entering or departing the United Kingdom and this belief must be justifiable in the individual circumstances.