The TSR Community Awards 2025 are now live >>

Real World Lecture - What threats should we be alert to in today’s society?

Hi I’m Dr Simon Hale-Ross an Associate Professor in Law at The University of Law. I’m also a great champion for neurodiversity, being diagnosed with Adult ADHD and Dyslexia.

During my doctorate I specialised in terrorism and counterterrorism law and measures. My work also focuses on law enforcement powers with an emphasis on the state’s online surveillance of electronic communications. Internet law and data privacy are of particular interest, along with serious organised crime and the international response to it.

I’ve written 'Digital Privacy, Terrorism and Law Enforcement: The UK’s Response to Terrorist Communication’ and in this work represented the first of its kind in critiquing the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The latest book available here.

On 10 December at 4pm I’ll be presenting a Real World Lecture on Threats in the 20th Century. This timely and exciting session will explore the current threats facing the UK and how the counterterrorism laws and policy have improved over time. You can book your spot here.

If this is a topic you’re interested in, I’d love to know your thoughts, especially on:

•

Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises the possession of documentation that ‘might be useful’ for a terrorist. In contrast to section 57, do you think s58 is needed?

•

The UK Government have announced plans to criminalise the planning stages of mass killing, as they do for terrorism offences. Do you think this is state overreach into normative criminal law? Or necessary to combat this evil?

•

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 has introduced bulk powers of electronic surveillance. This means they can be used indiscriminately on sections of the population. Do you think these powers are required? Do you think these powers go too far?

Reply 1

UniofLawstudent2

Official Rep

Original post

by TheUniofLawStaff

Hi I’m Dr Simon Hale-Ross an Associate Professor in Law at The University of Law. I’m also a great champion for neurodiversity, being diagnosed with Adult ADHD and Dyslexia.
During my doctorate I specialised in terrorism and counterterrorism law and measures. My work also focuses on law enforcement powers with an emphasis on the state’s online surveillance of electronic communications. Internet law and data privacy are of particular interest, along with serious organised crime and the international response to it.
I’ve written 'Digital Privacy, Terrorism and Law Enforcement: The UK’s Response to Terrorist Communication’ and in this work represented the first of its kind in critiquing the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The latest book available here.
On 10 December at 4pm I’ll be presenting a Real World Lecture on Threats in the 20th Century. This timely and exciting session will explore the current threats facing the UK and how the counterterrorism laws and policy have improved over time. You can book your spot here.
If this is a topic you’re interested in, I’d love to know your thoughts, especially on:

•

Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises the possession of documentation that ‘might be useful’ for a terrorist. In contrast to section 57, do you think s58 is needed?

•

It’s definitely an interesting topic, sitting right at the intersection of ethics, policy, and human rights, making it a great area for debate.

Starting with Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, I can see why it exists. In an age where information is so easily shared online, having laws that criminalise possession of material “useful to a terrorist” makes sense as a preventative measure at first sight.
It gives the state a tool to act before a threat becomes real, and recognises that information itself can be dangerous. However, the wording of the section “might be useful” feels intentionally ambiguous to cast a very wide net.
It risks catching people who have no criminal intent at all, for example, guides on avoiding surveillance by e.g recommending encrypted VPNs may help a terrorist, but the creator may have intended the usage of the guide for a completely different purpose; it would be like blaming a car manufacturer for someone committing a hit-and-run using the car they made.
That kind of uncertainty can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and academic work, so I think it’s an area that really needs clear limits and guidance on intent.

When it comes to the idea of criminalising the planning of mass killings, I think the motivation behind it is understandable. Society wants to intervene early to prevent tragic events before they happen. However, similar to Section 58, this could push criminal liability too far back into the realm of intent rather than action. Criminal law traditionally punishes conduct, not thoughts or ideas, as you need both Actus Reus (the action) and mens rea (the thought) to be criminally liable, and this proposal risks blurring that line.
There’s a danger of punishing people based on what they might have done, rather than what they actually did. While the aim of protecting the public is vital, the approach could set a difficult precedent for how far the state can go in policing pre-emptive intent.
It would also raise complex questions about how defences like mental illness or diminished responsibility (e.g. depression) would apply. The guidance won’t be clear for lawyers until many years later, when a substantial amount of case law has been established.

Finally, on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, this is probably the most controversial area, due to rising concerns about increasing government control, from new legislation such as the Online Safety Act, proposed legislation such as the one referring to Online IDs being necessary for employment, etc. I understand why bulk data collection can be justified as a modern security tool. Threats today are often coordinated online, across borders, and through encrypted platforms so surveillance needs to adapt, and the benefit is obvious. But the problem with bulk powers is that they can easily become indiscriminate, targeting everyone rather than those genuinely suspected of wrongdoing. That not only raises privacy concerns but also erodes public trust. Even with oversight mechanisms, the sheer scale of surveillance can feel invasive, especially if people aren’t aware of how their data is being used or stored.
Interestingly, this can be compared to China’s extensive surveillance system, raising the question of whether such powers are worth the trade-off when we look at how far that model goes.

Overall, I think all three issues highlight how challenging it is to strike a balance between security and liberty. We absolutely need laws that protect people from serious threats, but those same laws must also protect fundamental rights like privacy, freedom of thought, and expression. If they go too far, they risk undermining the very values they’re meant to defend.

(edited 3 months ago)

Reply 2

UniofLawstudent3

Official Rep

Original post

by TheUniofLawStaff

Hi I’m Dr Simon Hale-Ross an Associate Professor in Law at The University of Law. I’m also a great champion for neurodiversity, being diagnosed with Adult ADHD and Dyslexia.
During my doctorate I specialised in terrorism and counterterrorism law and measures. My work also focuses on law enforcement powers with an emphasis on the state’s online surveillance of electronic communications. Internet law and data privacy are of particular interest, along with serious organised crime and the international response to it.
I’ve written 'Digital Privacy, Terrorism and Law Enforcement: The UK’s Response to Terrorist Communication’ and in this work represented the first of its kind in critiquing the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The latest book available here.
On 10 December at 4pm I’ll be presenting a Real World Lecture on Threats in the 20th Century. This timely and exciting session will explore the current threats facing the UK and how the counterterrorism laws and policy have improved over time. You can book your spot here.
If this is a topic you’re interested in, I’d love to know your thoughts, especially on:

•

Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises the possession of documentation that ‘might be useful’ for a terrorist. In contrast to section 57, do you think s58 is needed?

•

This is a super interesting topic! I think it can seem difficult to find a balance between national security with individual liberty.

Although section 58 does seem at first glance to be an extreme measure, the fact that it is a defence to have a reasonable excuse for possessing such materials does somewhat justify its existence, in my opinion. Although the 'may be useful' threshold is low, the fact that journalism and academic study are accepted reasons for knowingly possessing this information does limit its negative impact. The courts have interpreted this to exclude common items like maps, timetables and chemistry textbooks, so perhaps it would have been good to include some wording clarifying this in the Act, but practically this provision does not seem to have been used in bad faith.

Criminalising the planning stages of mass killing could be a good measure, but I think it would depend on how cautiously it is drafted. I think it could be unjust to penalise people for actions they have not yet taken - if the 'planning' was defined as taking concrete steps, such as acquiring weapons, this could be mitigated.

Bulk powers of electronic surveillance are risky. Although they can be useful for identifying threats, I definitely do not think that unchecked abilities to monitor anybody at any point should be handed out. Requiring national security agencies to record the exercise and reasoning for the exercise of their powers so that this can be reviewed may be helpful. I would hesitate before saying this power should be outright banned, as it is clear that many other countries have no such qualms about using them, even against British citizens. This does not excuse gross invasions of people's right to privacy, however, so the key issue is proportionality.

Reply 3

Talkative Toad

Volunteer Team

(What seems to be) Starmer’s goal to become increasingly authoritarian.

Reply 4

UniofLaw Student

Official Rep

Hi Dr Hale-Ross,
This lecture sounds incredibly timely and important, given the current climate of evolving security threats alongside growing concerns about state powers and civil liberties.

On your points,
I do see the value in s58 for early intervention, especially where individuals are moving from curiosity into radicalisation. However, the lack of a clear intent requirement feels risky. It can create a barrier for legitimate academic research or journalism.
I can understand the motivation, particularly as “lone actors” may not fall neatly under terrorism legislation. My concern is how far the law should extend into pre-crime.
Bulk powers are perhaps the hardest to justify from a civil liberties standpoint. While I appreciate the argument that targeted surveillance alone may no longer be effective in a digital age of encryption, bulk collection risks becoming the “new normal”.
Overall, I’m really interested in how you think the UK should balance proactive threat prevention and the preservation of democratic freedoms.

Looking forward to your lecture; it sounds like a good discussion.

– Jess 😊
University of Law Student Ambassador
First Class Law Graduate & MSc Legal Technology Student