Re:
by raverbashing on Thursday June 22, 2023 @03:53AM
(#36429196)
Yeah, as much as saying 'using encrypted communications' is a very cheap shot by the prosecution, this seems to be the gist of it, the combination and the organization
Re:
by heywhatupboys on Thursday June 22, 2023 @04:19AM
(#36429361)
> The real, actual problem is the unlawful detention.
how is this defined?
> have you organised illegal activities through encrypted chat communications
If I did, why in hells name would I tell you?
Why would you ask that in the first place? To catch out the incredibly dumb terrorists?
To put you in prison if they find by some mean you did.
The mean could be a 5$ wrench, hacking into your devices or plain old surveillance
Re:
by martin8412 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @09:37AM
(#36431976)
If you lie, they can either put you in prison or deport you if you are not a citizen.
If I lie, and they can prove that I lied (e.g. I organized illegal activities, which is itself illegal) they can do that anyway.
There's absolutely nothing you gain by making it easy for them by telling them that you did.
Re:
by mrguyorama on Friday June 23, 2023 @11:31AM
(#36448262)
Criminals tell on themselves every day. Whether that's the truth or not isn't actually to cops.
The real, actual problem is the unlawful detention.
> And, amongst other things, using Signal and Linux with the encryption-on settings are explicitly listed as some of the things making them suspicious in the eyes of the law.
In combination with other things, and in this article there are quotes from interrogations which explicitly ask "have you organised illegal activities through encrypted chat communications".