Indeed. The Terrorism Act 2006 [0] defines the offence given in count 3 (just to pick one) thusly ... >A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

Indeed. The Terrorism Act 2006 [0] defines the offence given in count 3 (just to pick one) thusly ... >A person commits an offence if, with the intention of— (a)committing acts of terrorism, or (b)assisting another to commit such acts, he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention. That the conduct happened to be encryption is basically irrelevant. Had he been purchasing giant shrimp in order to further some bizarre terror plan then that would be the exact same offence. The author of TFA would be well advised to familiarise himself with UK terror legislation before making such sweeping and incorrect generalisations. It's the intent that is the offence, not the conduct. Which is not to say that the UK doesn't have a frighteningly totalitarian attitude to crypto, just that this isn't a good example of it in action. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 Edit: add link