Head of activist group charged with terrorist offense for not revealing device passwords

[midian182]

The contentious issue of customs officials and authorities demanding to search travelers’ digital devices isn’t one limited to the US. It’s something that happens in other nations, too, including New Zealand and the UK. The latter of which has just seen a man convicted for not handing over his phone and laptop passwords.

Muhammad Rabbani, who is the international director of campaign group Cage, has been convicted of a terrorist offense after refusing to unlock his iPhone and MacBook Air while being detained at Heathrow Airport. He was ordered to pay £620 (around $833) in costs and given a conditional discharge for 12 months.

Rabbani says he was returning from a wedding in Qatar in November 2016 when he was stopped. He claims the devices contained evidence from a client of Cage, which was set up to raise “awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror.”

"It was a case involving the US against an individual who was allegedly tortured over the course of 12 or 13 years in US custody," he said.

"There were around 30,000 (documents) which I was especially uncomfortable handling and I felt an enormous responsibility to try and discharge the trust that was given to me and the lawyers I met at that event."

The court heard that Rabbani had been stopped more than 20 times in the past while crossing the British border. Two of these occasions saw him refuse to hand over his PIN number and password when asked, but this was the first instance where he had been charged for not complying. The prosecution said Rabbani was not chosen at random for the latest stop.

“I was prepared to face the outcome even if it meant a term of imprisonment,” he said. “As the judge said, the importance of passwords and privacy cannot be overstated.”

“I have been convicted of protecting the confidentiality of my client. Our only option is to change the law. We will be appealing this decision.”

Rabbani was charged under schedule 7 of the UK's Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to search a person's electronic devices when they are traveling through a port. It supposedly allows authorities to determine if someone is involved in the "commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." Refusal to cooperate is a criminal offense.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/71134-head-activist-group-charged-terrorist-offensive-not-revealing.html

 

[yRaz]

Don't companies have to hand over the encryption codes during a court order making a password subpoena irrelevant? Also, if it't just a password without encryption on a device, it isn't that hard to clone the drive and look at what's on the computer....

 

[Tanstar]

Don't companies have to hand over the encryption codes during a court order making a password subpoena irrelevant? Also, if it't just a password without encryption on a device, it isn't that hard to clone the drive and look at what's on the computer....

This wasn't a case of him being taken to court and they required his passwords. He was just flying back into the UK after being in Qatar.

 

[davislane1]

Don't companies have to hand over the encryption codes during a court order making a password subpoena irrelevant? Also, if it't just a password without encryption on a device, it isn't that hard to clone the drive and look at what's on the computer....

This wasn't a case of him being taken to court and they required his passwords. He was just flying back into the UK after being in Qatar.

Yes. A man who works for a group sympathetic to terrorists, who refused to give up the same information the rest of us are forced to as a result of the actions of the people he chooses to defend.

At least they didn't give him a pass for reasons of political expediency. A welcome change.

 

[wiyosaya]

Don't companies have to hand over the encryption codes during a court order making a password subpoena irrelevant? Also, if it't just a password without encryption on a device, it isn't that hard to clone the drive and look at what's on the computer....

This wasn't a case of him being taken to court and they required his passwords. He was just flying back into the UK after being in Qatar.

Yes. A man who works for a group sympathetic to terrorists, who refused to give up the same information the rest of us are forced to as a result of the actions of the people he chooses to defend.

At least they didn't give him a pass for reasons of political expediency. A welcome change.

If you read the article, you see that it really does not say that the law only allows searching the EDs of terrorists. From this article, it appears that the law is very broadly written so as to allow fishing, and could equally apply to anyone carrying an ED through a port.

Please show us a reputable link (e.g., US DHS, UK equivalent, etc.) that says that the organization that his client belongs to is a terrorist organization. An organization that advocates for human beings who may have had and/or still are having their human rights violated does not necessarily mean that the organization itself is a terrorist organization - unless, of course, you want to call terrorist a matter of perspective.

There are similar organizations, I am sure, that advocate for prisoners held in other countries such as NK. If you are the NK government, then I am sure that you would classify these organizations as terrorist organizations. Does this help to explain perspective?

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

You've gotta understand that the customs officials were between a rock and a hard place. Do they charge him for not divulging his passwords or do they knock them out of him? At least by charging him they get to make a bit of money and also get to keep the skin on their knuckles.

 

[sdms96825]

Don't companies have to hand over the encryption codes during a court order making a password subpoena irrelevant? Also, if it't just a password without encryption on a device, it isn't that hard to clone the drive and look at what's on the computer....

This wasn't a case of him being taken to court and they required his passwords. He was just flying back into the UK after being in Qatar.

Yes. A man who works for a group sympathetic to terrorists, who refused to give up the same information the rest of us are forced to as a result of the actions of the people he chooses to defend.

At least they didn't give him a pass for reasons of political expediency. A welcome change.

If you read the article, you see that it really does not say that the law only allows searching the EDs of terrorists. From this article, it appears that the law is very broadly written so as to allow fishing, and could equally apply to anyone carrying an ED through a port.

Please show us a reputable link (e.g., US DHS, UK equivalent, etc.) that says that the organization that his client belongs to is a terrorist organization. An organization that advocates for human beings who may have had and/or still are having their human rights violated does not necessarily mean that the organization itself is a terrorist organization - unless, of course, you want to call terrorist a matter of perspective.

There are similar organizations, I am sure, that advocate for prisoners held in other countries such as NK. If you are the NK government, then I am sure that you would classify these organizations as terrorist organizations. Does this help to explain perspective?

Not sure what you mean by reputable, but try this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...shows-that-Cage-is-a-pro-terrorist-group.html

 

[davislane1]

If any of the observers are wondering why I banned myself from responding to this guy in non-tech threads, feast your eyes on this gem:

Please show us a reputable link (e.g., US DHS, UK equivalent, etc.) that says that the organization that his client belongs to is a terrorist organization. An organization that advocates for human beings who may have had and/or still are having their human rights violated does not necessarily mean that the organization itself is a terrorist organization - unless, of course, you want to call terrorist a matter of perspective.

Not only did I not say Cage is a terrorist organization (they are an NGO sympathetic to terrorists), but he doesn't even understand the details of the article he's commenting on.

Not sure what you mean by reputable, but try this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...shows-that-Cage-is-a-pro-terrorist-group.html

He's going to tell you that isn't how he sees it and that the source is bad.