London police charge man with terrorism over use of encryption

[dextersmith]

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.

He was aiding and abetting, but I was talking about something else.

[Magical Mudcrab]

How do you prove intentions ?

As an example:
If you can prove that Person A knows that Person B has been radicalized and is likely to commit an act of terrorism, then it's a fair assumption that Person A was intentionally being complicit with Person B (ie: Person A was knowingly aiding Person B.).

[zenkai]

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.

I think it's the reason he had an OS on a thumbdrive, not for having an OS on a thumbdrive.

Not a good example but best I could come up with is lets say you have a CCL for a gun, carrying one isn't illegal for you. But if you go rob a bank, even if you don't pull it out, you will be charged not just with robbery but armed robbery.

That's how I understand the charge anyway...

[ranzino]

As an example:
If you can prove that Person A knows that Person B has been radicalized and is likely to commit an act of terrorism, then it's a fair assumption that Person A was intentionally being complicit with Person B (ie: Person A was knowingly aiding Person B.).

That pig would not fly here, sorry.

[Kalis]

That pig would not fly here, sorry.

How do the German authorities prevent terrorist attacks if they can't arrest people based on intent?

[ranzino]

How do the German authorities prevent terrorist attacks if they can't arrest people based on intent?

I meant the "Person A is guilty because he knows Person B"-stuff. We would convict Person B, not A.

[Kalis]

I meant the "Person A is guilty because he knows Person B"-stuff. We would convict Person B, not A.

If Person A is shown to have known Person B was a radical and likely to commit an act of terrorism, and assists him in some way, he gets to go free under German law? I find that hard to believe, typically you arrest and prosecute all connected with the plot, not just those who plan to carry out the deed itself.

Is there no conspiracy type laws in Germany?

[Deleted]

If Person A is shown to have known Person B was a radical and likely to commit an act of terrorism, and assists him in some way, he gets to go free under German law? I find that hard to believe, typically you arrest and prosecute all connected with the plot, not just those who plan to carry out the deed itself.

Is there no conspiracy type laws in Germany?

according to this

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/e...tgb.html#p0148

1) Any person who intentionally assists another in the intentional commission of an unlawful act shall be convicted and sentenced as an aider.

i guess that means it comes down to proving intentions again

however i have no idea what that link is, was just one of the first results on google that wasn't in German :\

[Kalis]

i guess that means it comes down to proving intentions again

I think people just don't realise how much of a role intent plays in any modern legal system, e.g. murder versus manslaughter.

[Canpinter]

I think people just don't realise how much of a role intent plays in any modern legal system, e.g. murder versus manslaughter.

people are a bit to anal about the word prove. yes you cant PROVE that i premeditated the murder, but the fact that i had bought a hacksaw plastic wrap and dug a body sized hole in my backyard the day before i killed someone sure does suggest intent.

[ranzino]

If Person A is shown to have known Person B was a radical and likely to commit an act of terrorism, and assists him in some way, he gets to go free under German law? I find that hard to believe, typically you arrest and prosecute all connected with the plot, not just those who plan to carry out the deed itself.

Is there no conspiracy type laws in Germany?

bolded part is important. Unless that person knows something practical and not just "oh, he hates germany so much".

[Kalis]

bolded part is important. Unless that person knows something practical and not just "oh, he hates germany so much".

In this case they were alleged to be knowingly assisting, by providing plans for encrypting evidence of terrorist activities and apparently also missile guidance systems.

I'd be surprised if German law differed in the fundamentals from UK law in this respect, it would make breaking up terrorist rings in Germany virtually impossible if it was very different.

[ranzino]

In this case they were alleged to be knowingly assisting, by providing plans for encrypting evidence of terrorist activities and apparently also missile guidance systems.

I'd be surprised if German law differed in the fundamentals from UK law in this respect, it would make breaking up terrorist rings in Germany virtually impossible if it was very different.

Ok, that is active involvement. simple knowledge about "someone is radicalized" is not aiding terrorism.

[Kalis]

Ok, that is active involvement. simple knowledge about "someone is radicalized" is not aiding terrorism.

This thread is about a bloke who is being charged with aiding terrorism.

[ranzino]

This thread is about a bloke who is being charged with aiding terrorism.

I was also discussing this scenario, which is not so clear and present:

As an example:
If you can prove that Person A knows that Person B has been radicalized and is likely to commit an act of terrorism, then it's a fair assumption that Person A was intentionally being complicit with Person B (ie: Person A was knowingly aiding Person B.).

[Kalis]

I was also discussing this scenario, which is not so clear and present:

They are talking about proving intent though, it was in response to your question "How do you prove intentions?"

[ranzino]

They are talking about proving intent though, it was in response to your question "How do you prove intentions?"

And the quote was made by Magical Mudcrab as a reply to my question. in his scenario the intent is not so present as in the real case the thread is about. sorry for the confusion.