London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption

[Annoying]

The real breakdown on those charges:

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.

So realistically, this is an ISIS member who posted on his HTTPS enabled site. What he posted was a guide for other ISIS members on how to encrypt their site with HTTPS as he had done already.

Seems pretty straightforward. He had other charges that would seem strange without the connection to ISIS as well:

Count 5: On or before 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah had in his possession an article namely one Universal Serial Bus (USB) cufflink that had an operating system loaded on to it for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism, contrary to section 57 Terrorism Act 2000.

I mean, that's just a live OS on a thumbdrive. I have like 20 different versions lying around my office at work.

[PACOX]

Yes, it's racism, nothing whatsoever to do with him aiding people to commit terrorist acts.

It's profiling, and maybe profiling is racist.

Either way, going off the article, the excuse to charge him is ridiculous.

It's like they started to go after the owners of gun ranges because some shooter was there before their crime.

If he had known ties, then fuck him, throw him to the wolves. Loose connections are bullshit though.

[Kalis]

I didn't see the contents of the blog linked in the article, where did you find that's what his blog was about?

From the original article I read on this, it happened a week ago.

[Sunseeker]

http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-c...ffences-189511

here is the official press release from the Met, it details every charge that was made against him

So he had a book about missiles, a USB dongle with an OS, and was researching encryption. That sounds like just about every defense contractor I can think of.

Frankly, it sounds rather thin, and if they can't prove he was a member of ISIS, I don't see how they'll get the rest of the charges to stick.

[ranzino]

Providing know-how of encryption IS legal. You are not responsible for their actions, may it coding their newest plan for a start-up or a bomb raid.
Otherwise it would be also possible to convict a shop owner for selling larger kitchen knives. You can chop vegetables with it or threat a kidnapped victim or slice throats.

[Deleted]

The real breakdown on those charges:


So realistically, this is an ISIS member who posted on his HTTPS enabled site. What he posted was a guide for other ISIS members on how to encrypt their site with HTTPS as he had done already.

Seems pretty straightforward. He had other charges that would seem strange without the connection to ISIS as well:


I mean, that's just a live OS on a thumbdrive. I have like 20 different versions lying around my office at work.

yeah the rest of the charges make sense to me, but i can't quite make sense of that, its like theres a whole bit of information missing in that one.

[Kalis]

It's profiling, and maybe profiling is racist.

It's a counter terrorism operation, they go after terrorists.

#TerroristLivesMatter

Either way, going off the article, the excuse to charge him is ridiculous.

It's like they started to go after the owners of gun ranges because some shooter was there before their crime.

It is nothing like that, he is charged with knowingly aiding terrorists, not being unlucky...or brown.

[Annoying]

yeah the rest of the charges make sense to me, but i can't quite make sense of that, its like theres a whole bit of information missing in that one.

I didn't see the contents of the blog linked in the article, where did you find that's what his blog was about?

Well, the bbc article has this:

It is alleged the defendant was responsible for a blog site said to contain information about Islamic State and cyber-security guidance.

( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-sou...wales-37561088 )

Which seems to state that his blog had information about ISIS on it. If it was just a blog on how to implement HTTPS encryption, I'd find it hard to believe that you could prove intention of use for terrorism. Pretty scant details about what "information about Islamic State" was on his blog. =/

[Deleted]

Well, the bbc article has this:

( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-sou...wales-37561088 )

Which seems to state that his blog had information about ISIS on it. If it was just a blog on how to implement HTTPS encryption, I'd find it hard to believe that you could prove intention of use for terrorism. Pretty scant details about what "information about Islamic State" was on his blog. =/

i meant the last charge, its not clear how having a USB with an OS on is linked to terrorism, if it was about the files on a usb drive it would make sense

[AeneasBK]

Maybe more information will come out after the case is concluded....

[Aeluron Lightsong]

i meant the last charge, its not clear how having a USB with an OS on is linked to terrorism, if it was about the files on a usb drive it would make sense

If the blog did have information on ISIS in a way that was benevolent towards them then yeah I think the guy's guilty. Note that's my personal feeling not a legal opinion at all.

[Annoying]

i meant the last charge, its not clear how having a USB with an OS on is linked to terrorism, if it was about the files on a usb drive it would make sense

Oh, yeah. Definitely a "...what?" moment for me as well. Like I said above, I have like 20 of those with various different recovery tools or live OS on them. Unless it's a customized OS that comes with terrorist stuff on it, or has malware or something, not sure how that works.

[Daerio]

How do you prove intentions ?

With circumstantial evidence, like they're been doing in courts since courts existed.

Unless your last name is Clinton, then we can never prove intent and don't even try.

We don't prove anything by hooking people up to mind reading machines, yet intent is considered proven in court all the time.

[Sunseeker]

Well, the bbc article has this:

( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-sou...wales-37561088 )

Which seems to state that his blog had information about ISIS on it. If it was just a blog on how to implement HTTPS encryption, I'd find it hard to believe that you could prove intention of use for terrorism. Pretty scant details about what "information about Islamic State" was on his blog. =/

I'm far less worried about terrorists using encryption than I am about my home government using "Terrorism" as a term that lets them do whatever they want without regard to the law.

I mean shit, THIS site contains information about the Islamic State, maybe not the information they're talking about but still that seems like a fairly weak charge.

[Kuntantee]

Not sure why this is newsworthy.

[Deleted]

Thoughts can be crimes without action?

Apparently.. and people mock the American justice system.

I guess the article mentioned six cases of terrorism though. Assuming the other 5 can actually be proven, it makes more sense. Like say if you get caught murdering someone with an axe your internet search history shows things like "where to buy the best murder axe" and "how to kill a guy with an axe" it obviously proves its premeditated and rules out accidental manslaughter or self defense.

[caervek]

i meant the last charge, its not clear how having a USB with an OS on is linked to terrorism, if it was about the files on a usb drive it would make sense

That's exactly what it was about.

- - - Updated - - -

Thoughts can be crimes without action?

He's been arrested/charged for his actions not his thoughts.

[dextersmith]

Apparently.. and people mock the American justice system.

I guess the article mentioned six cases of terrorism though. Assuming the other 5 can actually be proven, it makes more sense. Like say if you get caught murdering someone with an axe your internet search history shows things like "where to buy the best murder axe" and "how to kill a guy with an axe" it obviously proves its premeditated and rules out accidental manslaughter or self defense.

But that's one crime of first degree murder (here), not conspiracy and murder. How is every man not charged with mental rape or harassment by every feminazi there?

- - - Updated - - -

He's been arrested/charged for his actions not his thoughts.

My point was thought crimes shouldn't be a thing.

[caervek]

How do you prove intentions ?

Harry Callahan: Yeah, well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard - that's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How'd you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.
[leaves]
The Mayor: I think he's got a point.

- - - Updated - - -

My point was thought crimes shouldn't be a thing.

I don't think anyones saying they should be.

[Kalis]

How is every man not charged with mental rape or harassment by every feminazi there?

It is a crime to knowingly aid terrorism, which is what the bloke in the OP is being charged with, there is no 'thought crime' involved.

It is conspiracy to commit terrorism.