
ISIS suspect charged with researching encryption, encrypting website - Errorcod3
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/10/11/isis-suspect-researching-encryption/
======
Mendenhall
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
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.

------
johnhenry
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. :/

~~~
rietta
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.

------
brassic
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.

~~~
contravariant
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.

~~~
x0x0
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.

~~~
contravariant
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.

------
rietta
It seems USB Cufflinks are a thing!
[https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=...](https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=73415064373&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7731927148516397129&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010961&hvtargid=kwd-24771296108&ref=pd_sl_3w77pknhtq_e)

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...](https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky-deluxe).

Learn something new every day.

------
lucker
_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.

------
microcolonel
"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.

------
RachelF
More comments on this story here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671)

------
joesmo
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.

