Remove your objection of force here to stay on topic.

A quote:

> if not a majority, of the profits of his service came through being an enabler to criminal activity. He's being realistic on the subject

In the same way Signal would be an enabler of terrorism.

Let's call both equivalent. Crime = crime.

Is encryption (or even the concept of privacy) then unethical because some benefit from it wrongly?

Bottomline: Just because we realize that people commit crime with tools not intended for crime should we then outlaw those tools?

To add something: When you're running such a service and care about the right to privacy, you should try to minimise its use for illegal purposes whenever possible.

It's quite counterproductive to glorify that criminal activity as some sort of heroic effort in defence of privacy rights, and gloating about it with a sort of haha-cant-stop-the-terrorist-inyourface. Because, yes, if your privacy tool becomes useful enough for that clientele to cause significant harm, people will start supporting its ban.

GP asked "where do you draw the line?" to a person who didn't make any normative claim at all.