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".<p>"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."
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. :/
This is not really about encryption or terrorism.<p>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.<p>Terrorist offences (as woolly as they are) attract additional penalties but the general principle is nothing new.
It seems USB Cufflinks are a thing! <a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=...</a><p>My first thought was it was some sort of hybrid device such as the USB Rubber Ducky, like <a href="https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky-deluxe" rel="nofollow">https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky-delu...</a>.<p>Learn something new every day.
<i>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.</i><p>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.
"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.
More comments on this story here <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671</a>
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.