A pretty hot take by Louis Rossmann:
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/adblock-and-signal-are-for-terrorists:f
Nice, two countries in one week! 
Now i'm gonna use encrypted messenger to f***ing blow up...
my 
nose what did you expect!!?!?
3 Likes
4 Likes
Look at me I am the terrorist now!
2 Likes
4 Likes
Hey, I use graphene and ad blockers!
Well, Iâve got some bad news for youâŚ
1 Like
Ya, but at least I keep complete anonymous, theyâll never find me!!
-Sent from Android mobile
This part of comment intrigued me most :
From where did this fellow came to know the fact encryption is banned in India âjustâ 18 hours ago ??
Also, those termination in services of those few platforms are restricted only in 1 state, not anywhere else, and that part was not highlighted by Odysee.
Plus, that website( Odysee ) uses following on their website :
Means we need to use Googleâs add-on on Mozilla Firefox to opt out from it. Unless one knows this, Googleâs Services will be enabled by default !!!
Hmm⌠I tried to fact check a bit, as the article he was referring to was published by an NGO that works on civil rights in the internet and not by just a news agency. Also I think that France has quite a functional justice system. And no, I am not from France.
So, from what I found was that the investigations took place because these people came back from Syria after fighting with a Kurdish militia against ISIS. Apparently there were hints that they have acquired equipment to build explosives and obviously had the opportunity to collect the necessary knowledge in Syria.
The investigations werenât initiated because of secretive behaviour on the internet. Apparently the secretive behaviour was rather portraied to raise suspicions about their intentions. So, the way it is written in the article seems a bit odd.
Not sure how reliable the bits and pieces are that I found on the internet but it sounds very plausible to me.
I mean⌠the EU has quite good laws on privacy rights for their citizens. To track people down just because they make use of these rights wouldnât make sense.
Looks like click bait to me and an NGO advertising their own field of interestâŚ
Missed the point of it entirely. For this particular argument, it doesnât matter if the suspects were from Syria or not. It doesnât matter how suspicious they were acting. It doesnât even matter if they were actually terrorists. And Mr. Rossmann explicitly addresses that in the video.
The point is, the fact they were using secure technologies was used as evidence of them begin up to no good and nobody challenged that.
2 Likes
I also try to leave not too many traces on the internet.
But from what I read I am not sure their behaviour regarding using privacy tools was seen as an evidence.
Could also be that the authorities were trying to justify that they have little options of investigating their communication and therefore need to keep them in custody until the investigations are over.
Edit: for me itâs a bit like reporting about a murder case saying âthe suspect has been accused of murder because of speedingâ and skipping the fact that the speeding radar picture was taken on the site of the murder and at the time it happend.
I fully agree.From my point of view this video from Louis Rossmann is exaggerating and misleading.
Is caring about privacy a valid reason for locking someone up?
No, but investigating suspects is. And if you have no options to surveil someones communication while you fear that person blowing up someone else I guess it might be justified.
But thatâs just my imagination. I donât have in depth knowledge of the case nor the French law.
I am just doubting that the these people are locked up uniquely because they are using encryption. Itâs maybe one piece of the mosaic.
So, if you have no evidence of someone doing something wrong, itâs okay to just lock them up until you find evidence? For how long is it okay? 1 day? 10 days? 10 years? 20 years? Life?
What about presumption of innocence?