Archive | Police state

Tomorrow – Thursday 16 February – the European Parliament votes on the EU Terrorism Directive. EDRi lists some of the things being wrong with this directive:

• There are gaps in the harmonisation of the definition of terrorist offences. The Directive uses ambiguous and unclear wording, giving an unacceptably wide margin of manoeuvre to Member States. For example, the Directive criminalises “glorifying” terrorism without clearly defining it. This won’t prevent abuses experienced in countries like France.
• “The criminalisation of the attempt is also extended to all offences…with the exception of receiving training and facilitating travel abroad”. This creates risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty. In addition, the European Parliamentary Research Service has recognised that “establishing a ‘terrorist intention’ may prove a challenge.”
• The Directive’s scope touches on activities with little to no direct relationship to actual terrorist acts. For instance, hacking-related activities can be terrorist offences. Attempting or threatening to hack an information system can be punished as a terrorist offence in a Member State. Teaching somebody how to attack an information system (e.g. hacking) can be a terrorist offence. Seeking information on how to conduct an attack to an information system, can lead to a charge for committing a terrorist offence. In addition, inciting somebody to teach how to hack an information system can be a criminal offence.
• Establishment of new offences, such as “receiving training for terrorism”, which includes consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites. Consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites can be a terrorist offence if the person is judged to have had a terrorism-related purpose and intention to commit a terrorist offence. However, the Directive says that criminal intent can be inferred from the type of materials and the frequency in which an individual consults websites, for example. On top of this, it will not be necessary for a terrorist offence to be committed or to “establish a link” to other offences in order to be punished. The Directive also says that inciting someone to consult “terrorist websites” can be punishable by Member States.
• Member States can impose criminal liability on companies failing to remove or block terrorist websites.
• The process for adopting the proposal avoided all of the elements of good law-making. It was made in December 2015 without meaningful consultation, public debate or even an impact assessment. To give an idea of the importance of impact assessments, we recall that the impact assessment for amending the Framework Decision 2002 looked at the available information and opted not to recommend the adoption of blocking measures because, among other dangers, it creates a risk of jeopardising investigations and prosecutions. The 2007 impact assessment also stated that “the adoption of blocking measures … can only be imposed by law, subject to the principle of proportionality, with respect to the legitimate aims pursued and to their necessity in a democratic society, excluding any form or arbitrariness or discriminatory or racist treatment.”. In the Terrorism Directive, blocking measures can be imposed by non-legislative action. In addition, it is not even clear whether regulating non-regulated “voluntary” measures by internet companies falls under the legal basis of the Directive.

It’s a mess. A dangerous mess.

Read more and get all the links at EDRi: The time has come to complain about the Terrorism Directive »