Caffiene Fuelled Ravings of an undiagnosed Sociopath.
13th June 2008
Scotland Yard is charging a Cardiff person with preparing for terrorism – but the list of charges show activities we associate with very ordinary precautionary privacy measures. “Developing an encrypted version of a blog” can be read as, and probably means, publishing it over HTTPS – such as this blog and many others, simply because it’s considered best practice.
This is ridiculous, yet another case of the authorities not understanding technology and the measures we as webmasters have to take to encrypt our data and that of our users. Under this precedent, filesnation.com and the owners of it are liable for terrorism charges. I'm sure they'd throw the book at us as we facilitate encrypted discussion, not just publish content under it.
Sigh. I'm done with the internet for today.
Mikey - GameFront.com - Lead Developer
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Are you sure there are no silly FBI
wankers agents behind such idiocy? When authorities find securing data and privacy extremely suspicous you should get worried. By these accounts any person with a safe in their house or hell even those who have a lock on their door and close the curtains must be very suspious ....
Mister Angry Rules Guy
1st February 2010
I have news for them. I have HTTPS running at all times, and I have two different adblockers running simultaneously, AND I have Ghostery running at all times. Obviously, I am a threat to England. Lock me in the London Tower.
I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.
15th December 2002
hello, terrorist faktrl here,
filesnation is harbour for terrorist
regards from filenation
No, but seriously, I get the feeling about two things here, I don't think this is simply about researching and using https encryption, I suspect it has more to do with using an onion address for the blog - that's how it reads to me and not HTTPS - the author of the article assumes that it means HTTPS but I highly doubt this is the case. Researching and encrypting a website using https isn't something that Scotland Yard is going to waste time on.
Now, as for using an onion site, that is a much more different question - we're talking darkweb here, and as far as I can tell, there's very little if anything legitimate out on the dark web, certainly it's a safe haven for illegal activities.
Specifically the reason why I think this is to do with onion / tor and not https is this;
publishing the instructions around the use of programme on his blog site.
You don't need instructions to use HTTPS, it just works.
Regardless, it's the subject matter that got him arrested at the end of the day it seems.
Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com
9th March 2003
The TOR network does have some fiercely dodgy stuff to say the least, however I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with it. Anonymity online I believe is critical for massive number of reasons which I won't go into now, but what I find interesting is the fact that the US military/intelligence agencies need the TOR network to be populated with considerable more traffic than just themselves and that is the reason they are the biggest contributor to its funding. This is also why I don't believe the UK will be able to do anything to stop it, even if there are technical reasons that prevent them being able to do so.
The big problem with outlawing encryption is that because everyone uses it, now you have a law that everyone breaks and you can selectively enforce it to suit you. Police force think you did something you didn't do and they can't find evidence for it? Fuck you, you're going to prison regardless. Speaking out against a political party? Fuck you, you broke the law posting that blog page using encryption. Threaten to expose corruption, fuck you, you're going down. Its incredibly dangerous.
Mister Angry Rules Guy
1st February 2010
The only way to stop this is to physically shut down the internet, such as how North Korea supposedly only allows access to 28 websites. But shutting down the internet completely defeats the purpose. Not only is it counter-productive, but also counter-intuitive.
11th November 2006
I'm with FileTrekker on this one; there's little reason to suspect that they're talking about HTTPS here. It's an assumption made by a (presumably) ignorant blog writer. The wording here is... Very specific;
[...] 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
There's no reason to employ a special encryption programme or deploy instructions on how to use said programme, if you're using HTTPS. It would be akin to creating an instruction manual on how to access Google on Internet Explorer. Completely and entirely pointless.
Also, being charged isn't a sentence in itself. You can be charged with a ton of things. That doesn't mean the charges are valid or that a court is going to actually accept them. I mean, for decades you've been able to be charged with lying to someone. That doesn't mean you actually get charged for calling in sick when Fallout 5 releases. People need to take the tinfoil off for a moment.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
If he was in charge of a terrorist network, do him for that. But I don't consider that it ought to be an aggravating factor that someone used encryption whilst they were about it. It's like saying, 'Charge 1. Attended a terrorist networking event' 'Charge 2. Used a car to go to a terrorist networking event.' 'Charge 3. Provided instructions to others on how to operate a car with the intention that they use it to go to a terrorist networking event.'
It's bullshit, an attempt to inflate the charge sheet.