3 ms·
The suspect was not charged with researching encryption. The actual charge is "preparation for terrorism." He was researching encryption to use it to prepare fo
by Mendenhall 10y ago
The suspect was not charged with researching encryption. The actual charge is "preparation for terrorism." He was researching encryption to use it to prepare for terrorism. You could face the same charge for researching chemistry if you were "preparing for terrorism".
"Count 3: 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."
- johnhenry 10y agoMy issue is that, according to the article, the research was otherwise legal. This provides a mechanism for a government to take someone suspected of a crime and add additional charges. Note that this is common tactic used to overwhelm a suspects's legal defenses, such that, even if he/she is innocent it's difficult to fight back.