SoylentNews

n1 [soylentnews.org] writes:

“Yesterday, you were defending thieves; today, you’re defending terrorists.” With these words, uttered early this morning, the leader of Poland’s ruling conservative party silenced the parliamentary opposition. Not five minutes later, Poland had a new counterterrorism law — the terms of which go beyond what most of the democratic world has thus far seen.

The bill establishes a battery of eyebrow-raising security regulations that limit freedom of assembly in vaguely defined crisis situations and allow for the arbitrary detention and surveillance of foreign citizens. In the digital realm, it gives the country’s powerful intelligence service, the Internal Security Agency (ABW), the mandate to block websites deemed a threat to national security. When a (vaguely defined) state of emergency is declared, the new regulations also enable the police to disable all telecommunications (an equally vague term that could refer to anything from phone lines to internet access) in a given area. The law also grants intelligence operatives unencumbered access to key data on Polish citizens — all this in a country that hasn’t seen a major act of terrorism since 1939.

[...] A common thread runs through both the Polish bill and some recent legislation in other countries: ambiguity. In a newly published report [freedex.org] on freedom of expression in the digital age, David Kaye, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, decries vague laws on digital issues as gateways to abuse. Poland’s new bill is a case in point. It extends the definition of “terrorist acts” to any real or planned criminal activity, punishable by more than three years in prison, that is devised with the intention of spreading fear, disrupting the activity of the Polish government, or compelling it to act on a given issue.

Source: Foreign Policy [foreignpolicy.com]

Original Submission