6 ms·

London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption

114 points by RachelF 10y ago

softgrow 10y ago
Picked up by Revk who's been banging on about the ludicrousness of banning encryption for a while now: http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.html http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.htm...
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  And who has sadly misunderstood and subsequently misrepresented the issue. Despite the click bait headlines, this case has very little to do with encryption per se.
- mSparks 10y ago
  Pretty sure Theresa May can be arrested under exactly the same charges. That's the thing with these people. Its not just idiocy, it's malicious intent. They really do think Orwells 1984 was a handbook not a warning.
  - simonh 10y ago
    You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. Using encryption itself is not illegal, only using it to prepare for or aid an act of terrorism. Which is stupid of course. S5 is pernicious and unjust overreach, but let's criticize it on factual grounds not misleading exaggeration. Regarding the 'being suspicious makes you a criminal' clause of the act, it's horribly worded and is in serious need to revision, but the commenter on the blog saying it can't override presumption of innocence until proven guilty is correct. This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain. Translation: "This law is aimed at scary brown people, so I don't have anything to worry about."
      - simonh 10y ago
        Wow. I think this is actually the very first time anyone has ever flat out accused me of being a racist.
        CamperBob2 10y ago
        That's being a bit dramatic. I don't know you, and I have no reason to accuse you of racism or anything else. But plenty of people take that position towards various objectionable laws here in the US. "Oh, they're not interested in me. I'm sure it'll be struck down in the courts anyway, no need to object."
        simonh 10y ago
        I am objecting. I did so very clearly and explicitly in the post you were replying to. Characterizing my post as arguing against objecting is a lie. Edited - dialing it back a bit. So apparently not exaggerating a racially charged issue is racism and objecting only based on facts and not made up conjecture doesn't count as objecting. The Trumpification of rational discourse is now complete.
      - intoverflow2 10y ago
        Please don't impose your US centric racial issues on UK society.
    - syshum 10y ago
      >>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what legally constitutes terrorism they exclude themselves from being perpetrators of said activity. However under the technical definition of Terrorism, which is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." I can make a case that almost every nation state on the planet is guilty of terrorism in some fashion. Leaders of those nation states are then terrorists. Most people however give a break to using violence if it is "legal" under the laws of a nation, they associate terrorism with the illegal use of violence, instead of the actual definition which is ANY use of violence legal or not "in the pursuit of political aims."
TheLilHipster 10y ago
Alternative sources: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helping-isis-usb-stick-cufflinks-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helpi... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37561088 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37561088 Not much specific information on the what and why, but this isn't a scenario of 'guy uses ssl therefore is terrorist' as the first article leads me to believe.
- akerro 10y ago
  Quick google search for his name and surname says he's linked to ISIS: A man arrested by police on a Cardiff street has been charged with carrying instructions on guided missiles and a computer storage device disguised as a cufflink in pursuit of Islamic State’s campaign of terrorism. Samata Ullah, 33, who was arrested last month. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    The first case is always legitimate.
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      You still have your rights, even if you are accused of being in isis or whatever.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    A man arrested by police on a Cardiff street has been charged with carrying instructions on guided missiles and a computer storage device disguised as a cufflink in pursuit of Islamic State’s campaign of terrorism That sentence is terrorism. Who teaches journalists to write nowadays? YouTube?
- 10y ago
stevetrewick 10y ago
Previously on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12676758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12676758 Here's a sample charge from the police press release [0] Preparation for terrorism. Between 31 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah, with the intention of assisting another or others to commit acts of terrorism, engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention namely, by researching an encryption programme, developing an encrypted version of his blog site and publishing the instructions around the use of programme on his blog site. Contrary to section 5 Terrorism Act 2006 [1]. Here's the Act [1] : 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. In this case encryption is the conduct. It is not the conduct which gives rise to the offence, it's the intent. The actual nature of the conduct is legally irrelevant. He could just as easily have been charged with the same offence for literally any conduct if the intent was to assist in terrorism. Procuring vehicles, preparing lunch, giving a pedicure. Lawyer in TFA seems to indicate that the met went on some kind of fishing expedition in the accused's browsing history, but a read through the linked press release [0] tells a different story : Count 1: Membership of a proscribed organisation. On or before 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah belonged or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation namely ISIS (Daesh). Contrary to section 11 Terrorism Act 2000. Count 2: Terrorist Training. Between 31 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah provided instruction or training in the use of encryption programmes, and at the time he provided the instruction or training, he knew that a person receiving it intended to use the skills in which he is being instructed or trained for or in connection with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or for assisting the commission or preparation by others of such acts. Count 4: Directing terrorism. Between 1 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah directed the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. Contrary to section 56 Terrorism Act 2000. I would have thought those - if sufficiently evidenced - would be enough to establish intent [2], which is what kicks in Section 5. So he wasn't charged 'because encryption' he was charged 'because terrorism'. Please note that I'm not making (here) any argument for or against S5, just pointing out that the reporting of this case is misleading as to the legal reasoning. [0] http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-terror-offences-189511 http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-terror-offen... [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law Edit: formatting

114 points by RachelF 10y ago

Picked up by Revk who's been banging on about the ludicrousness of banning encryption for a while now: http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.html http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.htm...

stevetrewick 10y ago
And who has sadly misunderstood and subsequently misrepresented the issue. Despite the click bait headlines, this case has very little to do with encryption per se.
mSparks 10y ago
Pretty sure Theresa May can be arrested under exactly the same charges. That's the thing with these people. Its not just idiocy, it's malicious intent. They really do think Orwells 1984 was a handbook not a warning.
- simonh 10y ago
  You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. Using encryption itself is not illegal, only using it to prepare for or aid an act of terrorism. Which is stupid of course. S5 is pernicious and unjust overreach, but let's criticize it on factual grounds not misleading exaggeration. Regarding the 'being suspicious makes you a criminal' clause of the act, it's horribly worded and is in serious need to revision, but the commenter on the blog saying it can't override presumption of innocence until proven guilty is correct. This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain. Translation: "This law is aimed at scary brown people, so I don't have anything to worry about."
    - simonh 10y ago
      Wow. I think this is actually the very first time anyone has ever flat out accused me of being a racist.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        That's being a bit dramatic. I don't know you, and I have no reason to accuse you of racism or anything else. But plenty of people take that position towards various objectionable laws here in the US. "Oh, they're not interested in me. I'm sure it'll be struck down in the courts anyway, no need to object."
        simonh 10y ago
        I am objecting. I did so very clearly and explicitly in the post you were replying to. Characterizing my post as arguing against objecting is a lie. Edited - dialing it back a bit. So apparently not exaggerating a racially charged issue is racism and objecting only based on facts and not made up conjecture doesn't count as objecting. The Trumpification of rational discourse is now complete.
    - intoverflow2 10y ago
      Please don't impose your US centric racial issues on UK society.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what legally constitutes terrorism they exclude themselves from being perpetrators of said activity. However under the technical definition of Terrorism, which is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." I can make a case that almost every nation state on the planet is guilty of terrorism in some fashion. Leaders of those nation states are then terrorists. Most people however give a break to using violence if it is "legal" under the laws of a nation, they associate terrorism with the illegal use of violence, instead of the actual definition which is ANY use of violence legal or not "in the pursuit of political aims."

TheLilHipster 10y ago

Alternative sources: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helping-isis-usb-stick-cufflinks-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helpi... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37561088 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37561088 Not much specific information on the what and why, but this isn't a scenario of 'guy uses ssl therefore is terrorist' as the first article leads me to believe.

akerro 10y ago
Quick google search for his name and surname says he's linked to ISIS: A man arrested by police on a Cardiff street has been charged with carrying instructions on guided missiles and a computer storage device disguised as a cufflink in pursuit of Islamic State’s campaign of terrorism. Samata Ullah, 33, who was arrested last month. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested...
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  The first case is always legitimate.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    You still have your rights, even if you are accused of being in isis or whatever.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  A man arrested by police on a Cardiff street has been charged with carrying instructions on guided missiles and a computer storage device disguised as a cufflink in pursuit of Islamic State’s campaign of terrorism That sentence is terrorism. Who teaches journalists to write nowadays? YouTube?
10y ago

stevetrewick 10y ago

Previously on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12676758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12676758 Here's a sample charge from the police press release [0] Preparation for terrorism. Between 31 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah, with the intention of assisting another or others to commit acts of terrorism, engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention namely, by researching an encryption programme, developing an encrypted version of his blog site and publishing the instructions around the use of programme on his blog site. Contrary to section 5 Terrorism Act 2006 [1]. Here's the Act [1] : 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. In this case encryption is the conduct. It is not the conduct which gives rise to the offence, it's the intent. The actual nature of the conduct is legally irrelevant. He could just as easily have been charged with the same offence for literally any conduct if the intent was to assist in terrorism. Procuring vehicles, preparing lunch, giving a pedicure. Lawyer in TFA seems to indicate that the met went on some kind of fishing expedition in the accused's browsing history, but a read through the linked press release [0] tells a different story : Count 1: Membership of a proscribed organisation. On or before 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah belonged or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation namely ISIS (Daesh). Contrary to section 11 Terrorism Act 2000. Count 2: Terrorist Training. Between 31 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah provided instruction or training in the use of encryption programmes, and at the time he provided the instruction or training, he knew that a person receiving it intended to use the skills in which he is being instructed or trained for or in connection with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or for assisting the commission or preparation by others of such acts. Count 4: Directing terrorism. Between 1 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah directed the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. Contrary to section 56 Terrorism Act 2000. I would have thought those - if sufficiently evidenced - would be enough to establish intent [2], which is what kicks in Section 5. So he wasn't charged 'because encryption' he was charged 'because terrorism'. Please note that I'm not making (here) any argument for or against S5, just pointing out that the reporting of this case is misleading as to the legal reasoning. [0] http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-terror-offences-189511 http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-terror-offen... [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law Edit: formatting