No, I don't think that's accurate. I'm glad the parent posted that as I was about to do a similar write up and they saved me a good couple minutes, but the head

No, I don't think that's accurate. I'm glad the parent posted that as I was about to do a similar write up and they saved me a good couple minutes, but the headlines as provided are a bit of a jump - as I'm not a UK citizen I had to read up on the Terrorism Act of 2006, and so far the counts listed on the Metropolitan Police's are well within accord with the Act as the parent described. Pointing out the logic isn't the same as supporting it. Quite the contrary, if we can't understand how the logic of the people who are doing bad things works, we can only treat symptoms, which doesn't get us very far. The parent post was accurate that other conditions were a requirement before a count from section 5 could be applied, and that it wasn't just a case of a person switching to HTTPS or downloading the Tor browser that caused this. I think it's pretty easy for anyone to understand why the S5 is overreaching, but it's important to accurately report why it's happening and how. I openly argue against this (having just heard about it), but on the basis that seemingly benign acts become criminal offenses. I find that ultimately it leads to absurd scenarios where punishments are given for otherwise benign acts - the idea of "_____ which is used in terrorism" just seems silly to me, as it can be applied to virtually anything and anyone without any clear understandings or definitions as to why it's applied as such.