Muslim arrested in Cardiff, UK, for the use of encryption

[kritikvernunft]

Samata Ullah, 33, appeared in court last week charged under the Terrorism Act 2006 on the following six terrorism charges:

Count 2: Provided instruction or training in the use of encryption programmes.
Count 3: 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.
Count 5: Possession an article namely one Universal Serial Bus (USB) cufflink that had an operating system loaded on to it.

Encryption is an important and practical subdivision in number theory. It is routinely taught at universities as an elaboration on modular algebra, universal algebra, and algebraic structures. Samata can study all of that like he wants, and share the knowledge acquired to whoever wants to listen to him.

Count 1 and Count 4 are entirely speculative. So, that leaves us with Count 6:

Count 6: On or before 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah had in his possession articles namely a book about guided missiles and a PDF version of a book about advanced in missile guidance and control.

If Samata Ullah wants to read books, and learn about guided missiles, that is his God-given right. There is no such thing as forbidden knowledge. There are so many applications for knowing that kind of things. He may even want to qualify for a well-paid job in the defense industry, why not?

In other words, they arrested, and are intimidating Samata, just because they can. What if everybody started attacking other people, just because they can? These uniformed people, visibly walking around on the streets -- very recognizably -- are the first ones who would start crying for their mothers, if everybody and their little sister routinely started attacking disliked targets, just because they can.

All of this is not a legal issue. This is a political issue, and attacking Samata Ullah is simply a provocation.

 

[M.I.A.]

...sure it does not make him a terrorist..

similarly to how masturbation does not make you a womaniser.

but if you have to hide your porn folder you obviously know something is wrong.

..why cant he watch russian life hacks guy like everybody else? those waterproof matches would be awesome if i ever go camping..

or if i knew how to go camping.. or had anybody to go camping with.

missiles only ever send stuff to space or kill people.. so maybe it deserves some observation by people paid to observe.

*deletes internet history*

*chucks laptop out the window*

*chucks phone out the window*

...no im still here, as someone who has been stopped by the police or questioned several times.. im ok with it..

as long as they are fair and still uphold the law..

i will do ok..

now if i could only escape this job.. and the people that hold me here.

im kidding..

also this is why safety matches are a thing.


lets try really really hard not to burn the place down.

 

[muslim brother]

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.

professed to belong...

in all terror cases ,we should not assume that all public information is the same as the private information(evidence)
,in other words there is always more evidence than which has been made public.

.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

In other words, they arrested, and are intimidating Samata, just because they can.

No, they arrested him because they had reason to believe he was planning acts of terrorism. Why are you trying to defend him? Do you have information showing he is innocent?

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

No, they arrested him because they had reason to believe he was planning acts of terrorism.

That is not what they are saying. He was teaching how to use encryption programs to people who were somehow suspected in that context.

Why are you trying to defend him? Do you have information showing he is innocent?

He can teach anybody to use whatever program he wants, and he can read whatever pdf file he wants. Even the fact that he would allegedly sympathize with "Daesh" does not make any difference to that. None of what he did, was a criminal offense. These are things that everybody does all the time. Nobody claims that they prevented imminent lawless action by arresting him. "We found a PDF file on him" ... So?

You see, I really don't like them. Backed by imaginary legitimacy, extracted from invented man-made laws -- totally godless -- they chose the time and the place to harass him, and somehow they hope that other people would not do the same with them, because then, their little game would completely fall apart. What gives them so much hope? I very much admire their faith.

 

[M.I.A.]

well heres the thing,

choices.

if he taught people without knowing what they were planning then he should be innocent..

no evidence to oppose his innocents.

if he knew what they were planning.. then those are choices.

days, months, years of them..

the whole place is dirt.

and we are mostly ignorant of the fact even if told..

thts why it requires a day, for us to be told the truth of all that we did.

man made laws might not be it.. but compare the east with the west and maybe the sentences would be different.

probably would have been better to work for the government.

 

[kritikvernunft]

if he taught people without knowing what they were planning then he should be innocent..

The whole point is that his students were not really planning anything. They most likely just happen to sympathize with those protracted insurgencies in Syria and Iraq. His students probably watched otherwise boring youtube videos about Syria all the time, and were presumably suspected of having sympathies for "daesh". If his students had actually selected a target to strike, a place, and somehow a date, they would have accused them of that instead. They didn't. So, they obviously hadn't.

All of this, was about their interest for encryption, which is a set of number theories which you can apply by using particular programs such gnupg/pgp, openssl, openssh, libsodium/nacl, name it. I use these programs every day. You could not even rent a VPS in the cloud, without using at least ssh, because that is the access method that you will receive from the hosting company. Any government that thinks that there is anything special about encryption, is totally deluded: ignorance on steroids. Even a trivial one-time pad is an unbreakable encryption method; and you can create that by yourself in a few lines of code.

One thing is true, though. If you know how to use encryption properly, you can prevent anybody else, including the police, from figuring out what you are saying to whom. But then again, I do not believe that government should have that kind of power. The very fact that these sections in mathematics have the potential to rein in government power tremendously, is exactly why so many people work on it, publish it open source, and promote the use of these tools. Seriously, we actually want everybody to use these tools, and snub all possible forms of government.

As you know, the use of force rests on willpower and technology. Willpower is not a strong point of government or its employees. So, we are indeed also making sure that governments can no longer count on having an edge in technology. Furthermore, let them struggle a bit more with Uber, before they get to battle with the next thing that we will unleash. Seriously, the real question is what technology they intend to use to defeat technology? It will certainly not be something that we will be making for them. ;-)

 

[M.I.A.]

i concede lol.

if someone gave me free software i would use it :/

..although if you like it, buy it.

i guess if it is all circumstantial then they should be ok.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

That is not what they are saying. He was teaching how to use encryption programs to people who were somehow suspected in that context.

OK, so he's helping others to plan acts of terrorism, which is clearly against the law.

He can teach anybody to use whatever program he wants, and he can read whatever pdf file he wants.

Not when it contravenes the law he can't.

Even the fact that he would allegedly sympathize with "Daesh" does not make any difference to that. None of what he did, was a criminal offense.

The article even specifies which sections of UK law he has broken. What part of this don't you understand?

These are things that everybody does all the time.

Not everybody claims to be a member of Daesh, helps others plan acts of terrorism and researches missile guidance in preparation for an act of terrorism.

I ask again: why are you trying to defend this guy?

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

if someone gave me free software i would use it ..although if you like it, buy it.

"Free" software is almost always free of charge, but it is also allowed to distribute it for a fee. Good examples are gnupg and openssh. They always come preinstalled with for example the debian distribution, which is 100% free (as in speech). That means that you or third parties can inspect, modify, improve, and re-distribute the programs. This is increasingly important to prevent anybody from infecting the programs with backdoors. The most widely used software that is a free publication is Google's android, which nowadays powers most of the mobile phones (except for iphones). Android is built on top of the linux kernel, which is also a free publication. You almost never need to buy this software, but you will, of course, have to buy the hardware to run it. The software will almost always come preinstalled on your phone. Sometimes, you can buy a CD or DVD, but usually, you will just have to download it, but that is pretty much always free of charge. There is also software that is not published under a licence compatible with the General Public License, but in that case, I will not install nor use that software. If the possibility for third-party inspection, and rebuilding from sources does not exist for a particular software package, I do not recommend to use it, if only for security reasons.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Not everybody claims to be a member of Daesh ...

Does "daesh" even exist as an organization? There is no inventory of the number of loose groupings of insurgents in Syria or Iraq. As far as I am concerned, it is just a bunch of youtube videos. How can anybody be a member of that? You would have to be a video yourself for that.

... helps others plan acts of terrorism ...

Encryption programs are not software constructed specifically for planning acts of terrorism. They could have accused him of teaching Microsoft Office to people suspected of whatever. MsOffice was also not specifically constructed for planning acts of terrorism, but it could indeed conceivably be used for that purpose.

...and researches missile guidance in preparation for an act of terrorism.

The description of a missile is not itself a missile. A missile may be a weapon, but a book about missiles is not. A book about books about missiles is also not. The information about a thing is not the thing itself.

OK, so he's helping others to plan acts of terrorism, which is clearly against the law. Not when it contravenes the law he can't. The article even specifies which sections of UK law he has broken. What part of this don't you understand?

This is a political conflict. Politics is about what the law should be. We clearly disagree on that. You could say that man-made law is backed by the use of force, but as you can imagine, that is exactly what you can expect the other side to say as well. We simply have no agreement on what the law is. In that sense, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Snow]

I remember some similar case in Canada.
Some guy got a sentence for overwriting his hard drive.
I do that regularly on an old computer I have, otherwise it hardly works haha.

 

[kritikvernunft]

I ask again: why are you trying to defend this guy?

Politics is rarely about what you like, but almost always about what you passionately dislike. Therefore, asking me if I like this guy, is the wrong question. He is rather an opportunity that I can use to express my dislike. Hence, you should rather ask me what exactly I dislike. ;-)

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Does "daesh" even exist as an organization?

Yes it does.

Encryption programs are not software constructed specifically for planning acts of terrorism.

Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming this.

The description of a missile is not itself a missile. A missile may be a weapon, but a book about missiles is not. A book about books about missiles is also not. The information about a thing is not the thing itself.

Are you suffering from brain damage or something? Why do you keep mentioning obvious but irrelevant points?

The guy was apparently helping to plan acts of terrorism, and should therefore stand trial. Let a jury listen to the evidence, and if they conclude he is innocent then he'll be acquitted.

This is a political conflict. Politics is about what the law should be. We clearly disagree on that. You could say that man-made law is backed by the use of force, but as you can imagine, that is exactly what you can expect the other side to say as well. We simply have no agreement on what the law is. In that sense, we will have to agree to disagree.

The UK law is clear on this issue, so statements of yours like "None of what he did, was a criminal offense" are straightforwardly untrue.

Therefore, asking me if I like this guy, is the wrong question.

Then I suppose it's a good thing I didn't ask you that.

You are welcome to exist in the fantasy world inside your own head if you wish, but remember that if you speak to those of us who live in the real world, you will need to engage with facts at some stage.

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

Greetings,

Yes it does.

It is the job of the prosecution to prove that this organization exists, by providing us with its organization structure, leadership at various levels, and clearly indicate to which leader in this organization the defendant would have reported. In other words, who was his direct boss? Who was the boss of his boss? Turtles all the way up.

The guy was apparently helping to plan acts of terrorism, and should therefore stand trial. Let a jury listen to the evidence, and if they conclude he is innocent then he'll be acquitted.

Fair enough. To the extent that a plan without details is not particularly much of a plan, we expect the prosecution to provide to us all its details. We look forward to having a look at these imaginary plans.

The UK law is clear on this issue, so statements of yours like "None of what he did, was a criminal offense" are straightforwardly untrue.

There is no accusation of imminent lawless action. The prosecution has no details whatsoever as to what exactly would be future lawless action, not even an alleged target, a place, and certainly not when it would take place. It is obvious that the prosecution wishes to proceed on the basis of imaginary future events that only exist in their fantasy.