London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption | Hacker News Reader

London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption

zdnet.com

114 pointsRachelF27 comments

Alternative sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helpi...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested...

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.

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...

The first case is always legitimate.

You still have your rights, even if you are accused of being in isis or whatever.

That sentence is terrorism. Who teaches journalists to write nowadays? YouTube?

Previously on HN 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-offen...

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law

Edit: formatting

Thanks for that summary. I am (very) pro privacy/encryption but I can see this is more akin to: "The defendant was carrying a shovel, a weapon and rubber gloves in the trunk of his car" -- not itself an offence unless they can also prove they were intending to do something nasty with these things.

"Going equipped"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968#Section_25

Subsection 3 is especially relevant when it comes to intent:

"Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, proof that he had with him any article made or adapted for use in committing a burglary or theft shall be evidence that he had it with him for such use."

>Please note that I'm not making (here) any argument for or against S5

Sounds like you are, sounds like you are making a very Pro S5 argument

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.

No, I'm really not. There is a difference between explaining how something works and advocating for it. It's a category error to conflate positive statements with normative statements. I'd be interested know which part of what I wrote makes you think I'm making the latter, despite my explicit statement to the contrary.

The sad thing is that this guy will probably be set free again after serving 10 months in prison.

Aside from that I have to admit that it is strange to me that a Muslim human rights lawyer would want to defend him.

User catuskoti posted what appears to me to be a civil and insightful comment (reproduced below) which is now dead - as is every other comment but one by this user, ever since a flagged comment 69 days ago. Most seem civil enough. Is this evidence of a vindictive voting ring, some kind of HN penalty, or just my misalignment with the zeitgeist?

As to ISIS, to what extent is this true? A friend of mine recently suggested that ISIS essentially operates like Anonymous - all it really takes to be a member is to declare membership. If this is the case - or even a parallel phenomenon to ISIS proper - then surely that's highly relevant to cases like this?

-----

catuskoti 10 hours ago [dead] [-]

> Count 1: Membership of a proscribed organisation.

Besides the existence of some youtube videos, there is no other evidence that this "daesh" is truly an organization and not just an arbitrary amalgamation of people who share particular symbols or subscribe to particular views. The insurgencies in Iraq and Syria are more correctly classified as violent civilian unrest with gangs taking over particular functions from a discredited Syrian goverment. Putting videos on youtube does not turn any of that into an "organization".

For any accusation of imminent lawless action, the prosecution must indicate the reasonably precise time and place where this was supposed to take place. Otherwise, it becomes too easy to accuse everybody and their little sister of plotting that kind of things. The suspect may have sympathies for the ongoing insurgencies in Iraq and Syria, but that is not a valid reason to attack this person for studying the math theorems of his choice.

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.htm...

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.

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.

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.

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."

Wow. I think this is actually the very first time anyone has ever flat out accused me of being a racist.

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."

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.

Please don't impose your US centric racial issues on UK society.

>>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."

Under this definition, protesters hurling stones are terrorists. Not that I am a fan of idiots throwing objects during a demonstration, but I think nobody would reasonably accuse them of terrorism...

That would depend on the circumstances around the stone throwing and the goals of person(s) throwing the stones.

In some instances yes it would be terrorism. Terrorism does not have to involve massive loss of life, or even be life threatening.

People today seem to believe terrorism is only when Brown people blow themselves up in a Town Square, or when someone goes on a Mass Shooting rampage under the guise of a religion.

Terrorism can take many forms, and is more rampant then people want to acknowledge. People today only want to focus on Islamic terrorism, and exclude almost all other forms as they seem to be more socially acceptable often because they are legal

We must tread with caution when we move beyond tools that can only support rule-of-law.

The creation of dual-use tools that can also be used for rule-by-law necessarily involves taking on a plausible existential risk to our society.

To justify this, the threat that they are countering must pose an existential threat to our society that is demonstrably greater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com