This is not what happened. They were not put into custodity because they cared for their privacy.
Who said that that happened? Who said that they were put into custody because they cared for privacy?
Did I misunderstand your last post:
It is not a valid reason and this is not what happened.
I never said that this is what happened, I merely asked @anon92589110 to clarify his viewpoint.
Let me be clearer: if someone is suspect of a crime, should the fact they care about privacy have any influence on how they are treated by the police or the prosecutors? Should the unavailability of exculpatory evidence in the form of non-private communication be used as a reason to keep them locked up?
Nothing to do with the actual thing that happened in France, but a hypothetical.
Of course that wouldn’t be okay. And I don’t think that’s how it is. I think in almost all countries there is pre-trial detention and it’s of course bound to legal rules.
So, maybe they have enough evidence to conclude the suspects were commiting a crime but not enough to be certain. I am sure they have to present their evidence to a court and judges are deciding whether locking them up is justified. And I am also sure their lawyers can get them out if it is not justified.
Back to the case: They were arrested after an extensive surveillance activity by french authorities over a period of 2 years. In the report the authorities mention the efforts of the suspects to encrypt their communication. That is it.
In his video Louis Rossmann makes up a story about it saying " AdBlock and Signal are for TERRORISTS" and that “the french government has gone too far”.
This guy is making too much out of it and this is generating too much noise from my point of view.
But why would that be relevant? The implication here is clear.
What do you mean with “relevant”? You mean why it was mentioned in the report? That does not necessarily make it relevant. May be they mentioned it just for documentation purposes. I dont know. Why is that relevant?
Not solely because of that. But one has to see the whole picture. Buying 10 prepaid sim cards is not illegal. Buying fertiliser for plants that can also be used to build a bomb is also not illegal. But if I recently became suspect for whatever reason and then I start using encrypted communication, in addition to the above mentioned it would confirm the suspicion of the investigator to a certain extend.
If there would be a discussion “Buying fertiliser is not illegal! You can not lock up people because they buy fertiliser” followed by an article referring about how gardeners get incriminated, would you still say that’s fair?
Oh come on, that’s clear as day.
They try to lay road for full on lawless surveillance tyranny under pretense of “MUH TERRORISTS!!11” and “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!111”, one government at a time, until it will be global.
It’s old as day, they’ve always done this, it’s not even a matter of debate at that point.
I am not contradicting that. I just say, that this article is nonsense. If they want to make your point, they clearly picked the wrong story.
We can pretend it is not that, but it is exactly that.
Just like 500 euro bills were withdrawn from circulation because they are used by drug dealers and terrorists. Nothing do do with the fact they are trying to implement a social-credit-based cashless society where every transaction is transparent to the regime that is not democratically elected. Nothing to do with any of that
Because, as we all know:
Oh dear, that was not the point I wanted to make. As mentioned, if they wanted to make this point, it’s the completely wrong example in the article.
Also… I should clearly have sticked to my preference to not talk about political stuff on the internet
Perhaps, but that doesn’t matter at all, those s that will force that crap on public regardless of laws or academic research of who and why - don’t really care about details at all, it’s the endgame that matters.
All successful propaganda and fear mongering is always predicated on biggest and most insane lies.
Terrorism or not, this is of no importance. I’m going out now to get my 16th booster shot before my country gets flooded due to climate change or maybe the evil Russians will nuke us first. BE SCARED!!!
Besides that (and as my last statement in this thread): I don’t think police investigations are the problem interferring with our privacy rights, as they are always linked to a certain criminal offence and individual persons.
The huge problem I see with that is security/secret services or other governmental entities around the globe scanning huge amounts of data every day (and not just the 5 devices of a criminal suspect) or companies who sell just huge amounts of data to governments or whoever. Dictatorships who use this data to secure their power and so forth… but I guess here we are all on the same page.
The difference between the two does not exist.
When you are a citizen of a totalitarian state, having wrong thoughts is a criminal offence.
There is no such thing. All countries are (self) called as Democracies, meaning that the citizens are in control of the country’s government.
When it’s mentioned more than 100 times in a report, we’re exactly in the “Think of the children !” agenda.
Quote from the official english version of the article.
A short intelligence note, of which many elements will turn out to be false and in which the DGSI requests the opening of a preliminary investigation reads as follows: “All members contacted adopted a clandestine behavior, with an increased security of the means of communication (encrypted applications, Tails operating system, TOR protocol enabling anonymous browsing on the Internet and public wifi).” This sentence will appear more than a hundred times in the file. Written by the DGSI, it will be repeated uncritically by all the magistrates involved: first and foremost the Investigating Judge, but also the magistrates of the Investigating Chamber and the judges of freedoms and detention. During the investigation phase, the amalgam between encryption and clandestinity will be used by the DGSI to justify the implementation of the most intrusive means of surveillance, in particular bugging private places. The DGSI will consider them necessary to monitor “individuals who are leery of phones” and “use encrypted applications to communicate”. After their arrests, the defendants will be systematically questioned, both by the DGSI and the investigating judge, about their use of encryption tools and will be asked to justify them: “Do you use encrypted messaging (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, ProtonMail)? “, “For your personal data, do you use an encryption system? “, “Why do you use this kind of encryption and anonymization applications on the Internet? “. In total, there are more than 150 questions related to the issue of encryption and digital practices in the investigation file.