ISIS suspect charged with researching encryption, encrypting website | Hacker News Reader

ISIS suspect charged with researching encryption, encrypting website

helpnetsecurity.com

15 pointsErrorcod313 comments

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."

My 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.

Terrifying that the UK's Terrorism Act of 2006 can be used to prevent research and publishing of information. I hope that parliament reconsiders the implications of this act and I hope that the US doesn't look to this as an example. :/

The U.S. most certainly will. In testimony before the Congress, the FBI Director James Comey indicated that the U.K. is in some ways ahead of the U.S. He was referring to the banning of end-to-end encryption and key disclosure laws, which it seems that he wishes were the law of the land within the United States as well.

This is not really about encryption or terrorism.

In England and Wales teaching someone a skill is not normally illegal, but teaching someone a skill for the purpose of committing a criminal offence may well be aiding and abetting.

Terrorist offences (as woolly as they are) attract additional penalties but the general principle is nothing new.

My knowledge of UK law is limited, but what strikes me as odd is that he's facing additional punishment for several actions that aren't themselves malicious. It's not just a single charge for aiding in a terrorist attack, but a whole range of separate charges (with heavy punishments) for possibly related but otherwise completely innocent actions.

But those other actions only appear to be a crime if meant to aid terrorism. Or am I wrong?

see eg CA: possession of lockpicks is legal. If you have criminal intent, which must be proven, possession is a felony.

I don't really think that particular law makes any more sense.

If an act is only a crime when used to prepare for a more serious crime, then the crime should be 'preparing <serious crime>' not the preparatory act. If an act can be shown to be preparation for a more serious act then the person should be punished for preparing the more serious crime (which usually has a maximal punishment equal to actually committing the crime), if there isn't enough evidence to show that the preparatory acts shouldn't be punishable either.

It really seems like a way to try to convict someone with shoddy evidence, or some roundabout way of trying to get around double jeopardy, or perhaps to criminalize intent, rather than acts.

It seems USB Cufflinks are a thing! https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=...

My first thought was it was some sort of hybrid device such as the USB Rubber Ducky, like https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky-delu....

Learn something new every day.

The charge regarding the otherwise legal research and dissemination of instructions about the use of encryption software, as well as the encrypting of a website has been brought by invoking the controversial Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which prohibits anyone from engaging in any conduct in preparation for an intended act of terrorism.

Hmm. Well, I certainly hope that they don't make some other Act in the future that defines terrorism to mean anything that hurts the government or society.

"possessing articles for the purpose of terrorist acts" seems pretty vague, though I guess you could prove positive even something this nebulous with the right evidence.

More comments on this story here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671

I guess Scotland Yard has their work cut out for them now if they have to arrest every person operating an HTTPS website. Or, the law is arbitrary and we might as well have an insane king deciding things as the outcome would be the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com