The EU stated in the press release of the time:
“Today the Council reached a common approach on the amendment of the Framework Decision on combating terrorism proposed by the Commission on 6 November . The amendment up-dates the Framework Decision making public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment and training for terrorism punishable behavior, also when committed through the Internet”
While this all sounds very laudable, stopping terrorism and the exchange of biological weapons on the Internet, there are a few concerns about this:
Firstly, who decides what “training for terrorism” is? Would a stag weekend in eastern Europe, involving firing machine guns count? What about kids fastening fireworks together? Or what about students reading the Jolly Rodger Cook Book?
Secondly, what if this definition shifts slightly? The UK have “shifted” laws over time, initially only the fingerprints of the guilty could be taken, then it was anyone arrested, now the government is issuing guidelines that allows children as young as 4 to have their fingerprints taken at school (2 million taken so far). What if, once the powers have been created, the governments decide to tweak the laws slightly and change the phrasing to “terrorist related training”? That would hardly make the news but it could mean that paint-balling could count as training, or what about web sites that have information about how easy it is to avoid CCTV , ANPR, or fingerprint scanners? Would they be shut down?
Thirdly, the UK has lived with the IRA for 300 years, the Spanish have ETA, the French have the Algerians, and Germany had “Munich”, yet despite all of this nobody suggested censorship on this scale – its worth pointing out that the IRA killed more than the 9/11 attacks. So why the the sudden fear of the bogey man? What’s the driving force?
Finally, who are the biggest arms dealers in the world, who are the ones who buy and sell weapons to dubious regimes around the world? The 5 biggest dealers are – USA, China, Russian, UK and France.
Companies like BAe, Lockheed Martin and others clearly sell weapons, often to places that conduct torture and, by many legal definitions, terrorism. But, despite this they will almost certainly be allowed to have a web site.
So who is the censorship aimed at?