
London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption - RachelF
http://www.zdnet.com/article/london-police-charge-man-with-terrorism-over-use-of-encryption/
======
TheLilHipster
Alternative sources:

[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-
helpi...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samata-ullah-charged-helping-isis-
usb-stick-cufflinks-2016-10)

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-
arrested...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-
cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges)

[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
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...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/04/man-arrested-on-
cardiff-street-to-face-six-terror-charges)

~~~
cmdrfred
The first case is always legitimate.

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

------
stevetrewick
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-
offen...](http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-terror-
offences-189511)

[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

~~~
syshum
>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

~~~
csydas
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.

------
softgrow
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...](http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-
books.html)

~~~
mSparks
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
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.

~~~
syshum
>>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."

~~~
maze-le
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...

~~~
syshum
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

